Sitting of 2 July 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Earnings Disregard
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the disregard on earnings before income support is reduced.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): We keep the level of the earnings disregards under review. The Government are committed to monitoring them, but we have no plans for change at present.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Would she consider regarding as disregard the cost that a lone parent bears for child care if she decides to go back into the work force? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many women who are left to be supported by the state because their menfolk have deserted them would like to go back to work? However, if they lose £1 for every £1 that they earn after the first £15, the incentive for them to be self-supporting is reduced. I know that my hon. Friend would not want to punish such women and I am sure that she would like to give them more of a helping hand.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend, and in preparation for her question this afternoon I read her ten-minute Bill that, in part, dealt with that matter. My hon. Friend is right to say that many lone parents want to work, and about one third of family credit participants are lone parents.
    The Government have built into the social security system several disregards and incentives especially for lone parents. For example, £15 of their earnings is disregarded in income support, they get the same adult credit in family credit as a couple and, from October, lone parents will have a £25 disregard in housing benefit. The major thrust of Government policy is to ensure that lone parents, 95 per cent. of whom are women, get adequate and proper maintenance from absent fathers.
    Mr. Strang: If we are moving into the season of pre-election largesse—whether as suggested in the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) or in the report in today's The Guardian—will the hon. Lady take into account the plight of my constituent Mr. Stewart, about whom she wrote to me last month and who came to see me at the weekend? Mr. Stewart has had no increase in his income since April 1988, when the Government removed his special payments; he is
    670
    having to pay increased electricity charges, and he is having to pay 20 per cent. of his poll tax. Is there no limit to the extent to which the Government are prepared to inflict real hardship and misery on some of our poorest pensioners?
    Mrs. Shephard: Transitional protection was introduced to help those who might lose out under the 1988 social security reforms. A small number of people are still covered by transitional protection and the overwhelming majority of them received an increase this April.
    Mr. Strang: For my constituent—not this year or next year.
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment on an individual case. I am glad that he pointed out that I have already replied to him.

    Claimants (Residential Backgrounds)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if there are any limitations as to the residental background of recipients of attendance and other allowances; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Attendance allowance is payable to people who live in independent residential care homes. It stops after four weeks for those living in other residential homes if the care costs are met from public funds. Limitations for other allowances vary.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many elderly people who are of sound mind find it difficult and irksome to live with the confused elderly and those who are deeply ill?
    Mr. Winnick: What about the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. He is somewhat confused and always has been.
    Will my hon. Friend consider introducing changes to the allowance system so that people who are on attendance allowance can live not in nursing homes or in institutions but, for example, in private accommodation, where they could pay their way with the allowance?
    Mr. Scott: Yes. I understand that my hon. Friend has a constituency case. He has quite properly written about it to the local office manager, who will be replying soon. Some quite complicated calculations have to be made to see whether people would be better off if they moved into private accommodation from residential homes of one sort or another. Individual judgments will have to be made. Within the private residential sector, there is a wide range of types of property and provision.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many standard rate tax payers would be affected by the removal of upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): If the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions were removed it is estimated that about 3·3 million people would pay more contributions, of whom about 2·1 million would be

    671
    standard rate taxpayers. If the corresponding upper profits limit for self-employed people were also removed, it is estimated that about another half a million people would pay more contributions, of whom about 200,000 would be standard rate taxpayers.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that illuminating reply and I hope that it will be well covered by the media, because these are the Labour party's policies. As we have taken a great deal of time and trouble to remove Labour's tax on jobs—the national insurance surcharge—will we also look at the employers' national insurance contribution, which is running at roughly double the amount that it was in the days of the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the figures that I have given. I note what he suggested about the employers' contribution, but there is no upper earnings limit on it, and because of the way in which the national insurance system works and the direct relationship between the contribution paid by employees and the benefits subsequently received, I am not sure that the arguments are on all fours.
    Mr. Winnick: When an individual pays both national insurance contributions and tax, to ensure that when he becomes unemployed or sick, the state gives him assistance, how can there be any justification for reducing or taking away unemployment benefit? There is speculation about that in the press. Will it also be mentioned in the Tory manifesto, because the people want to know the truth? If unemployment benefit is to be taken away, how long will it be before pensions are undermined and perhaps taken away by the Government?
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman used the word "speculation". As far as I can see, the press reports to which he referred rest on one pamphlet from one body, the Adam Smith Institute. That is not a Government plan and there is no basis for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is not it true that, since the Conservative party came to power, most people who pay national insurance have saved over £3 a week on it, but under the Opposition's glorious plan, the people whom the Opposition laud as those whom they want to encourage—those earning between £15,000 and £20,000 a year—will pay £9 a week more? They would not pay that in national insurance; the fraud is that they would pay it in increased taxes. How does that encourage people to work?
    Mr. Newton: The answer is that that does not encourage people to work and that it runs exactly contrary to what we have sought to do in reducing national insurance contributions for many, with the aim of encouraging employers to provide jobs and encouraging people to do them.
    Mr. Meacher: If the Secretary of State is so concerned about the extra tax on higher rate taxpayers, how does he explain why the Government have increased, for instance, national insurance contributions, which are a tax, by no less than 14 per cent. for those on average or low incomes?
    In view of his earlier answer, is the Secretary of State—or is it only the Prime Minister—in favour of the latest crackpot, right-wing daftness of privatising the dole, but
    672
    still making people pay national insurance contributions so that they are forced to pay twice for the same benefit? If people have paid national insurance contributions, are not they contractually entitled to benefit? If something in the private sector that had been fully paid for were taken away, would not he, or even the Prime Minister, call that stealing?
    Mr. Newton: It is perhaps understandable, in view of the events of recent weeks, that the hon. Gentleman should go to such lengths to divert attention from the main point. He referred to higher rate taxpayers. The point is that Labour's plans, as is clear, and is clearer still from my answer, involve higher contributions from many basic rate taxpayers. That is the point that the Opposition have been seeking to disguise because they do not want to let on how many people will have to pay much more to finance the hon. Gentleman's ambition.

    Personal Pensions
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has as to the number of people who have now joined a personal pension scheme.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are taking out personal pensions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Just over 4 million people have so far taken out a personal pension.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most encouraging aspect of that figure is that it represents people in all age groups who have provided for their retirement? Does he further agree that it is absolutely disgraceful that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) should seek to penalise those 4 million people—or probably 10 million people, when one takes their families into consideration? Is not this what the Labour party is all about—muddled thinking, total misrepresentation and, worst of all, patronising people? In other words, we know best.
    Mrs. Shephard: To borrow a recently expressed phrase, that is an example of the Opposition's crackpot, left-wing culture—
    Ms. Short: This is disgraceful. It is an abuse of Question Time—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is answering the question.
    Ms. Short: This is an abuse.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Shephard: What is important about the Government's pension provision is that people now have a choice between remaining in the state earnings-related pension scheme, taking out a private pension and belonging to an occupational pension scheme. The Opposition have made it clear, through the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), that they are totally against that choice and independence in pension provision—
    Ms. Short: Will you do something about this abuse of Question Time, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The questions that were asked were in order, and if they were not I should rule them out of order.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is muddled, as this is not Prime Minister's Question Time? We are asking specific questions on specific matters. Does she agree that, to use the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the Opposition intend to steal private pensions from people?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Member for Oldham, West has already made clear his party's intentions for personal pensions. Fortunately, the Government intend to continue the policy of choice within pension provision between SERPS, a personal pension and an occupational pension scheme. Clearly, the Opposition wish to threaten that choice.
    Mr. Meacher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not it an abuse of the House that Question Time is used in regard to Opposition policies, which we shall certainly defend and promote when we have a chance? Is not the purpose of Question Time to hold Government policies to account?
    Mr. Speaker: This is not Prime Minister's Question Time and these are not open questions. It is the function of questions on the Floor of the Chamber to expound on policies, and that is what we are here to do.
    Mr. Flynn: To return to the question, does not the Minister feel a sense of guilt that she is aiding and abetting what is becoming the fraud of the century now that 4 million people have been bribed by dodgy advertising into taking out pensions? Does not she recognise that they are not pensions—they are risky savings schemes that are about as personal as a can of baked beans? When will the Government respond to the independent voices that are saying that more than 1 million people have been defrauded by such schemes and that most of their future benefits and pensions have already been eaten up by commission charges, administrative costs and the profits of the pension companies? Can it be possible that the Government are about to replicate that calamity by abolishing the dole? Will they give us a categorical denial, other than the arguments that have been presented today, and tell us that it is a product of midsummer madness by the loony right and that none of the Ministers will have any part in that crazy scheme to abolish the dole?
    Mrs. Shephard: I was under the impression, although much noise was being made by Opposition Members, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave absolute assurances about the Adam Smith Institute pamphlet. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) repeated the comments made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West to try to scaremonger and to terrify perfectly normal, ordinary people who wish to take advantage of the excellent pension choices that have been made available by the Government. It is a disgrace.

    Community Care Grants
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the budget for community care grants in the latest financial year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Scott: The community care grant budget for 1990–91 is £63 million.
    Mr. Welsh: Community care grants are essential to integrate people back into the community. How will cuts in grant affect that integration? How will the grants enable people to obtain suitable housing in order to allow them to return to the community? What is the Minister's view about the role of housing providers? Will they be an essential partner in community care schemes and planning or merely an afterthought?
    Mr. Scott: The budget for community care grant has not been cut but increased for the current year. I hope that as we develop our policies for care in the community, which we aim to introduce in 1991, there will be increased co-operation between social services departments, which will be involved increasingly in the provision of community care, and local housing departments so that proper arrangements can be made for those leaving institutions.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend will know that community care grants are available only to those on income support. Many who would benefit from them receive invalidity benefit or other benefit and are therefore disqualified. Will he sympathetically consider extending the grants to other members of the community who would benefit from them?
    Mr. Scott: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. There are administrative advantages in limiting community care grants to those who are on income support, and there are resource implications, but I have noted my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: If the social fund is so successful, why are so many disabled people now trapped in the jaws of loan sharks? Would not it much reduce dependence on community care grants if the Government quickly accepted the social security commissioners' decision, which was reported last week, in the important test case for severe disability premium of Simon Crompton, of Greater Manchester, which is estimated to benefit 30,000 other disabled people? What action is the Minister taking to identify them?
    Mr. Scott: We are considering the implications of that judgment. The fact that loans under the social fund are interest free is likely to remove people from rather than hand them over to the loan sharks.

    Pensioners (Income)
    Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' total incomes have risen (a) since 1979 and (b) between 1974 to 1979.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that while pensioners' total net incomes rose by only 3 per cent. in real terms between 1974 and 1979, they rose on average by more than that in each year

    675
    between 1979 and 1987. In total, they rose by over 31 per cent. in real terms in this Government's first eight years of office.
    Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As it is fashionable to quote the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) today, I am sure that she is aware of his comments in the Chamber on 30 January, when he said that the important consideration is the increase in pensioners' average income over the course of a Government. If my calculations are correct, we have done six times as well as the previous Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that a strong and proper pensions policy depends on two pillars—first, the strength of the economy, which enables us to pay proper state pensions and, secondly, a healthy economy giving a proper return on pensioners' savings? On both counts we outperform the poor performance of the previous Labour Government and the poor promises of a would-be Labour Government.
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the successful economic policies pursued by the Government have enabled us to spend £55 billion a year in real terms on social security and spending on pensioners and the elderly to increase by a quarter. To pursue anti-inflationary policies is particularly important for pensioners.
    Mr. Frank Field: I accept the accuracy of the Government's figures although, of course, they have not yet been checked by the Select Committee. Will the hon. Lady confirm that for the poorest pensioners the most important thing to look for is a real increase in national insurance benefits? Will she confirm that, under the Labour Government, pensions for that group rose by 20 per cent. and under this Government they are yet to rise by 3 per cent?
    Mrs. Shephard: The incomes of the poorest pensioners increased by 19 per cent. in that same period. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the numbers in the lowest quintile decreased from 38 to 24 per cent.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is not it important to look carefully at the differences in income and support between the younger pensioners and other older pensioners, aged over 75? Have not younger pensioners in particular done extremely well with regard not only to income but to home ownership and personal and occupational pensions? Is not it necessary to look carefully at the incomes and the support given to older pensioners who have not done so well with regard to home ownership and occupational pensions?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right. Seventy per cent. of recently retired pensioners have occupational pensions, half own their own homes and 85 per cent. have income from savings. The Government have taken action to help the older, poorer pensioners through the package of measures announced last October, which helped 2.6 million individuals.
    Mr. Kirkwood: No one seeks to deny the important improvements in the standards of living that pensioners with occupational pensions and savings have enjoyed over the past few years. Does the hon. Lady accept, however, that it is a great mistake for Government policy to be predicated on the basis of gross public expenditure
    676
    increases or average pensioners' incomes? Does she further accept that, over the past year, the erosion in pensioners' standards of living because of the difference between the retail prices index and earnings levels has been a constant source of concern for poor pensioners? If the package of measures last October was so successful, why will not the hon. Lady repeat it this October?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman implicitly accepts that the October package was a success. Its aim was to target help towards older and poorer pensioners. I am sure that those who are responsible for dealing with those matters will listen to the hon. Gentleman's points when he asks for them to be considered next October.
    Mr. Gow: Is my hon. Friend really telling the House and the country that pensioners' living standards have risen faster in each of the past 11 years of the Conservative Government than in the six years of the previous Labour Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: That is exactly the case. My hon. Friend puts the matter accurately
    Ms. Short: Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) would like to think about the fact that, by comparing five years and 11 years, one gets rather different outcomes. This is another attempt by the Government to manipulate and misuse the agenda of the House. I hope that you will reconsider your earlier ruling, Mr. Speaker, or any democratic procedure for holding the Government accountable will break down. I put it to the Minister—I am sure that she knows this to be true—that, according to the Library, 20 per cent. of pensioners rely entirely on state benefits. The Government have cut state pensions by £13.20 for a single pensioner and £20.70 for a couple. Labour takes great pride in the improvement in many pensioners' incomes due to the introduction of SERPS, which the Government have now cut, resulting in a reduction in the incomes of future pensioners. Labour is proud of the improvements for some but is worried about those who are finding life increasingly hard, many of whom are women. The poorest pensioners are women, and the Government are doing nothing for them.
    Mrs. Shephard: The average income of pensioners who receive all their income from state benefits has increased by over 27 per cent. during the life of this Government. If the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends go on threatening and scaremongering about the choice, independence and diversity that the Government have introduced into pensions, they will live to rue the day.

    Income Support
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the amount within an income support payment which is imputed to cover the 20 per cent. liability for poll tax; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tony Newton: On average, income support beneficiaries receive the equivalent of 20 per cent. of a community charge of £340.
    Mr. Nellist: As the average poll tax is £100 higher than was envisaged when the Government introduced the £1.30 payment per person on income support to cover that notional 20 per cent., why have not the Government

    677
    increased the figure to 20 per cent. of the actual average poll tax? In Tory-controlled Windsor and Maidenhead, for example, the poll tax is £449 and 20 per cent. of that is £1.72; the odd 40p may not mean much to a Minister on nearly £1,000 a week, but to someone on income support it means a loaf of bread.
    Mr. Newton: The level of community charge varies from place to place. The amount that people have to pay reflects the decisions of their local council, and there is an element of that in respect of income support. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the figure that I gave in my original answer. The weighted average amount included in income support payments across Great Britain is equivalent to 20 per cent. of what has turned out to be the average community charge across Great Britain after allowing for transitional relief.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that all people on income support receive the full maximum 80 per cent. rebate on their community charge? Do not those on income support also benefit from transitional relief, which cost the Government £350 million in England alone and which benefits 7.5 million people? Does not that show that we are the Government who care for the disadvantaged?
    Mr. Newton: I can confirm that those on income support pay only 20 per cent. of their community charge—the other 80 per cent. is met directly—and that many income support beneficiaries will have benefited from the transitional relief scheme.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my constituency of Workington, and throughout the north-west, there is a disturbing incidence of young people leaving home because of changes in social security legislation and also because their parents will not help out with payment of the poll tax? Was it really the Government's intention to drive young people out of their family homes? If it was not, will they reconsider the legislative provisions which are having that effect?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made a number of changes in the way in which the benefit rules operate, in an endeavour—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security for the work that she has done in this regard—to ensure that the rules, which are sensible, work as well as we should like them to. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recall the history of social security and young people, especially under the old board and lodging regime. The attempt to solve the problems by social security means has aggravated rather than diminished them.
    Mr. Stern: To revert to my right hon. Friend's original answer, does he agree that his reference to the Government's taking into account an average community charge of £340 underlines the sheer cruelty and lack of concern for the poorest people implicit in the attempt—shortly to be frustrated, I hope—by Bristol city council and Avon county council to levy a community charge of £493?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that the core of such problems as are faced not only by those on benefit but by many others whose incomes may be quite modest reflects the irresponsible decisions of many councils throughout the country.

    Homelessness
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures his Department is planning to take to reduce the problems of the homeless.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced a substantial package of measures on Friday 22 June to deal with this problem. We believe that this is the best way to tackle the issue, rather than through benefit changes.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister prepared to concede that the Government's legislation, especially in relation to the withdrawal or reduction of social security benefits for young people and the imposition of the poll tax, compounded by their refusal to allow local authorities to build houses for rent, have created the appalling homelessness which exists in Great Britain today? Does she agree that renting a few church halls will not solve the problem?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the problem of homelessness spans a number of Government Departments and a number of countries throughout the world. He referred specifically to young people, however, and I remind him that there is no need for any 16 or 17-year-olds to be without an income. They can have a job, remain in education or take a YTS place. We have made a number of administrative changes and we raised the benefit level last July to help that particular group. I fully accept that there were some problems with the interaction between the Department of Social Security and the operation of youth training schemes, but we have done everything possible to put that right. It is surely better for young people to start their adult lives in school, in a job or in training rather than trying to live on benefit.
    Mr. Favell: Has my hon. Friend noticed that young people who sleep rough almost always seem to come from the indigenous population and rarely from the immigrant population, who always seem to find somewhere to live? How can that be so? Would not it be unreasonable to provide expensive council house accommodation and flats for young people who merely leave home when others have to save, often for years, to find the accommodation that suits them?
    Mrs. Shephard: I have already stated in reply to an earlier question that the Government believe that the best possible start for young people is to take training places, of which there are plenty—even a surplus—available and if possible to live at home. There are special benefit arrangements for those who have to live away from home.
    Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister not understand the difference between the roofless and the homeless? While the announcement of a recent package of measures involving opening up a few chuch halls put a roof over some young people's heads, those measures do nothing to solve the underlying problem that thousands of teenagers are being driven out of their homes by the conditions created by the Government, not least through the stealing of YTS allowances and the general cut in benefits?
    Mrs. Shephard: I totally rebut the hon. Member's accusations. If larger numbers of young people are leaving home than in previous years, that is also a matter of concern for their parents.

    Maintenance
    Mr. Ralph Howell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce proposals resulting from his review of the maintenance system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: We are pressing ahead with the review of maintenance, which is wide ranging, and are examining all areas of the current system to see where reform is required. We hope to make proposals later this year. Meanwhile, there are measures in the present Social Security Bill which address some of the problems that lone parents have experienced with the current system. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, has recently announced proposals to reinforce payment arrangements.
    Mr. Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and I wish him well with the proposals that he is bringing forward. They are long overdue.
    Mr. Newton: I am duly grateful to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Meacher: I shall ask a real question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's first effort in that direction—the enforcement of payment through attachment of earnings—is merely a pathetic re-statement of existing law? Why is there nothing about the real issues such as the level of awards, which in general is far too low? What incentive is there for mothers to claim maintenance if the Department of Social Security simply claws it back in reduced income support? Do not the proposals have all the makings of yet another Tory ramp of reducing public expenditure instead of giving extra help to those in real need?
    Mr. Newton: I really think that the hon. Gentleman might tone down some of the overheated language that he so persistently uses. First, the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, involve legislation and thus can scarcely be simply a re-statement of existing law—[Interruption.] Having asked three questions, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer them.
    Secondly, as we announced to the House earlier this year, we have already taken action to strengthen the way in which maintenance is assessed and the amount that is expected under the current DSS rules.
    Thirdly, the advantage to lone parents is that their position is much better if they are getting maintenance, especially when they enter work, than if they are wholly dependent on DSS benefits.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend consider the position of single mothers bringing up children on their own without any assistance from the fathers, particularly when the fathers are known? Does he agree that it would be appropriate to ask those mothers to make applications to the courts for maintenance so that the fathers face up to their duty to support their children rather than leaving the whole burden to the taxpayer?
    Mrs. Gorman: You have to catch them first.
    Mr. Newton: Yes, and indeed we do. Lone mothers in those circumstances can face a number of practical problems. We are seeking to address those problems in the Social Security Bill—for example, by legislating to make it possible for the Department's own maintenance orders to
    680
    be transferred to claimants when they leave income support, and by taking powers to enforce a claimant's own maintenance order if it falls into arrears.

    Retirement Age
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his current plans for introducing a common retirement age for men and women in relation to the state pension.
    Mr. Newton: The Government's position remains as described in the response, published in April, to the report of the Select Committee in another place.
    Mr. Hughes: Now that we are beginning to see signs of the Government's programme for the coming year and what the Prime Minister would like in their manifesto for the next election, and as the Prime Minister will be 65 this autumn, may we at last have a clear commitment from the Government to a common retirement age for women and men?
    Mr. Newton: I have referred to our response to the Select Committee in another place, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have read it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are committed to the principle of equal treatment, but there are a range of difficult, complex practical issues and I really cannot give the hon. Gentleman the off-the-cuff undertaking that he seeks.

  THE ARTS

    Museums and Galleries (Charges)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has received calling for access to all public museums and galleries to young people under 18 years to be without charge.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): In recent months, I have received a number of letters concerning admission charges in the national nuseums and galleries which I sponsor. Those institutions which levy an admission charge allow free or concessionary entry to all pre-booked school parties and students. The decision whether to introduce admission charges is, of course, a matter for the trustees and directors of individual institutions.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that about 15 per cent. of all museums and galleries in London charge more than £2 for young people's admission and that fewer than 5 per cent. have free admission? Will he state that it is the Government's view that, wherever possible, it should be a museum's or gallery's policy that young people should be admitted free of charge as part of their general education?
    Mr. Luce: The decision whether admission charges should be imposed is for the trustees, but if national museums and galleries were to impose charges—about five in the London area have decided to do so—in most, if not all, cases there would be concessionary rates for children. That means that most children would be admitted at half price. There are any number of examples of free admission for school parties. That is an important principle to pursue.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for all museums and public galleries in this country to hold exhibitions for people under the age of 18 on the history of Labour Governments since 1900, all of which have ended in disaster, especially for those least able to defend themselves?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has introduced an interesting idea, although I am not sure how many members of the public would bother to go to such an exhibition—we should have to wait and see. It must be stressed that, when admission charges are imposed, it is important for the public to see a clear benefit to the customer. For example, the science museum has free admission on certain days and is open on more bank holidays than before.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that the first step to widening access and encouraging children to go to our great national galleries is for those galleries to be in good condition? Does he support the plan of the Arts Council chairman, Mr. Peter Palumbo, to restore the fabric of our theatres, museums and galleries by the end of the century? Does he accept Mr. Palumbo's point that the problem—indeed, the crisis—has been caused by the Government's neglect over the past 10 years? Will he at long last accept what I have been urging him to do for the past three and a half years and have a national audit of all museums, galleries and other cultural buildings so that we know how big is the legacy of debt that the Government are leaving to the country?
    Mr. Luce: I look forward to dealing more fully with some of those issues in the debate on Wednesday, when shall answer some of the hon. Gentleman's nonsensical points. Since 1979, the overall real resources of the national museums and galleries have increased by no less than 40 per cent. and for building and maintenance by 50 per cent. In September I announced that £180 million would be made available for the fabric of our national institutions. That is very much in line with the view expressed by Mr. Palumbo that we should get our institutions and their fabric in good shape.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend take a leaf out of the French book in relation to the treatment of museums and galleries and ensure free admission for large families and men or women mutilated in wars?
    Mr. Luce: I am sure that the leaders of the institutions in Britain will acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend, but it is for them to decide what should be done. Some British institutions, unlike the majority of French institutions, do not charge at all.

    Photography
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether it is his intention to vary the Arts Council's responsibility for photography.
    Mr. Luce: No, but I expect the council to review its support for photography as part of its development of a national strategy for the arts.
    Mr. Boyes: I welcome the Government's plans for devolution, especially that aspect which permits regional art association photography offices to work closely with the national officer. That will enable all the officers to
    682
    formulate a coherent national policy for the further development of photography, especially in the context of funding for regional galleries, but does the Minister accept that carrying out those plans will require adequate funding and support from the Minister?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There has been a 10 per cent. increase this year over last year in overall resources for the Arts Council to give to photography. I am sure that that will play a part in helping to strengthen photography in Britain.
    I cannot let this occasion pass without congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his achievement in producing the book, "People in Parliament", and I congratulate him the more strongly inasmuch as I am one of the people who feature in the book. I also congratulate him on his leading part in organising the remarkably good exhibition of photographs by hon. Members—an exhibition which shows that there are many hidden talents in the House.

    Paintings
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on the public display of paintings.
    Mr. Luce: I have been much impressed by the recent expansion of the range of paintings on display in London, including the new Courtauld Institute galleries and the generous loan of the Berggruen collection to the national gallery. There are, of course, many other developments outside London.
    Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend's answer reveals that the position not just in London but in the provinces is very good. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure by the use of loan paintings and the reserve collection that people who do not live in London can see the excellent pictures available in the metropolis?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. A special exhibition and travelling unit advises on such matters at the Museum and Galleries Commission. There are now more loans available throughout the country and more objets d'art are outside the cellars and on display, but there is still a long way to go. As for London, I noted the other day that the chairman of the national gallery, Lord Rothschild, said that he believed that London is now the paintings capital of the world. In view of the remarkable developments of the last few years, I am sure that he is right.
    Mr. Bidwell: May I draw the attention of the Minister and of the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), to the resumption of the exhibition of paintings and art by Members of both Houses? The exhibition opens officially tomorrow morning, but the works are already displayed in all their glory. There are some fine exhibits on show and admission is free. After a two-year gap, there are some splendid contributions this year. Modesty prevents my saying any more.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing to the attention of the House and the outside world once again the hidden talents available in the Chamber.

    Building Refurbishments
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Minister for the Arts what programme of refurbishment of buildings within the responsibility of the Office of Arts and Libraries has been established.
    Mr. Luce: I am allocating £180 million over the next three years towards the building programmes of the national museums and galleries which I sponsor. The current year's allocation of £57 million represents a 75 per cent. real terms increase over 1979–80.
    Mr. Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the private sector has played a major role in refurbishing and repairing our museum buildings? Will he congratulate those responsible for the major refurbishment work on the facade of the Victoria and Albert museum which is turning out splendidly and rising phoenix-like from its scaffolding? Will he also—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough.
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend about the remarkable contribution of the private sector to the refurbishment of national galleries, including the V and A. By contrast, £5 million of extra private sector money has been made available for the British museum by the Japanese to help open the Japanese galleries. There are several other examples. Most notably, Lord Wolfson has joined the Government in a joint funding exercise to help with the improvement of the national galleries in our country.
    Mr. Sheldon: While I am pleased with the reaction of so many of the people with responsibility for some of our public buildings and the arts aspects of them, does the Minister agree that we need long-term funding for many buildings which have fallen into disrepair? That funding is urgently required, not just for the next year or two, but for the next decade or two.
    Mr. Luce: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point seriously. That is why I made a speech in York last September about longer-term funding for the fabric of our national institutions, particularly the national museums and galleries. It is for that reason that, with the co-operation of my colleagues in the Government, I decided to allocate £180 million for that purpose for the next three years. I have given an undertaking that it is the Government's task, job and duty to ensure that the fabric of those institutions in particular will be in good shape for the next decade.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Retired Civil Servants (Appointments)
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has any plans to revise the rules governing the appointment of retired civil servants to senior positions in companies with whose subject area they have dealt during their public service careers.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The rules are kept under review and were last revised in 1989. I have no present plans to revise them again.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that those rules, which preclude civil servants from taking senior board appointments in companies within two years of their retirement, are an important safeguard against civil servants being suspected, perhaps wrongly, of being influenced while in office by the hope of such appointments? Is not it strange that civil servants are in that position when the Ministers whom they advise, and who frequently neglect their advice, are not subject to similar restrictions and former Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry or for Energy can take appointments in the industries that they have privatised?
    Mr. Luce: The position for civil servants is as the hon. Gentleman describes. Of course, it is possible for their appointments to outside jobs to be delayed for up to a maximum of two years. It is not a rule that such appointments are delayed for two years. They can be delayed for up to a maximum of two years. Those rules have been in force for a long time. I am not directly answerable for the actions of Ministers, except for my own actions. However, the position is clear. I agree with the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and that expressed by Lord Wilson in 1968, that it should be up to the good sense and discretion of Ministers when they retire. Clearly, they will care deeply about their public reputation. Their talents and abilities, along with those of civil servants, should be available to the nation and the private sector should be allowed to benefit from them.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anxiety about this matter is not confined to the other side of the House and that, in particular, civil servants who have received considerable salaries and pensions must be careful about their relationship with the private sector after they retire from the public sector where they received confidential and important information?
    Mr. Luce: I fully acknowledge what my hon. Friend says. I am responsible for propriety, and I am most anxious to ensure that we continue with the highest possible standards. Under the rules, applications are sent to the advisory committee on business appointments and to the head of the home civil service when lower grades are involved. My hon. Friend might like to know that conditions were imposed upon more civil servants who were going to outside jobs in 1989–51 per cent.—than in 1988, when the comparable figure was 34 per cent., and in 1987, when it was 26 per cent. That is a sign that the issue is being treated seriously.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service trade unions; and whether he discussed conditions of service.
    Mr. Luce: I meet the civil service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Minister next meets the civil service unions, will he take the opportunity to dissociate himself and the Government from the report in The Guardian today of the thoughts of the right-wing Tory No Turning Back group for a pay-as-you-like or pay-whatyou-like tax system? Is not this a typical, desperate last attempt by the Conservative party to flag up its growing unpopularity in the opinion polls?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question should relate to the conditions of service of civil service trade unions.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the bash-the-taxman idea behind the scheme is deeply offensive to civil servants and will do nothing but lower morale among Treasury civil servants who are collecting taxes on our behalf?
    Mr. Luce: I cannot see the direct connection between the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question and the civil service. The production of new thinking and new ideas from all parts of the Conservative party is a sign of how alive the party is and how much it is looking forward to serving the country in the 1990s.
    Mr. Aitken: Has my right hon. Friend had time to discuss with the civil service trade unions the concern that they feel about Treasury report No. 2435, which recommends the downgrading of the pay and structure of a number of security officers and investigating officers in the sensitive area of physical security of Ministry of Defence buildings and of positive vetting? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a report which appears to seek to reduce by as much as £2,400 a year the pay of the 350 or so officers who work in this sensitive area is sending the wrong signal to the IRA and others and that there should be careful reconsideration of those misguided proposals?
    Mr. Luce: That is a matter which should be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends, and I shall do that. I note what my hon. Friend has to say.
    Dr. Marek: The Minister can no longer hope for preferment from a discredited Prime Minister and it would do all civil servants a power of good if he stated that the possibility reported in the newspapers of a bash-the-taxman policy in the next Conservative manifesto would be resisted by him. Civil servants at the Inland Revenue are professionals who take a pride in their work and the last thing that they want is a bash-the-taxman policy in the next Tory manifesto. Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that it does not appear?
    Mr. Luce: When the historians come to judge the 1980s and early 1990s, I believe that they will praise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her remarkable leadership. They will realise how alive the Conservative party was in the 1990s and how much its members were looking forward to serving the country in the future, compared with the sterile members and policies of the Labour party.

    Agencies
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what assessment he has made of the effect on the quality of public sector services of the establishment of agencies.
    Mr. Luce: Improved service is one of the most important benchmarks by which the success of the next steps initiative will be judged. Results from the early agencies are promising.
    Mr. Martin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of service promoted in the next steps programme is wholly consistent with the Government's drive to improve
    686
    the quality of life in the areas affected by these services for those who work in them and, equally important, for the customers?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. One of the main objectives of the next steps programme and the reforms is to ensure that the service provided to the public by the civil service is strengthened still further and that the quality of the service is even better. As we look to the 1990s, that is our clear priority. Evidence is coming in already that the agencies, ranging from Companies House to the laboratory of the Government chemist, and including HMSO and many other organisations, are providing an improving service and that high priority is given to the customer.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister accept that computerisation of the benefit system has caused great problems for the staff and that, far from staff reductions, the 23 managers of the system agree that staffing levels should be increased? Current problems include giros not being paid on time, specialist benefits not being dealt with and money from the social fund, designed to make crisis payments for cookers and the like, not being paid out on time.
    Mr. Luce: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and the hon. Lady will be aware that my right hon. Friend is paying great attention to the way in which we can improve the services through that system. An agency is to be established next year which will strengthen still further the prospects for a better service.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only the conditions for those who consume the agencies' services but the terms and conditions of the employees have been improved? Will my right hon. Friend give every consideration to the Paymaster General's office in my constituency where the management would greatly welcome an early move in to the private sector?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We must, of course, draw a distinction between agencies remaining under the control of Secretaries of State and privatisation. There is increasing enthusiasm on the part of the staff in those agencies—hence their success stories. The potential for staff terms to be improved is considerable as a result of more flexible pay, individual performance bonuses and, in some cases, group performance bonuses.

    Civil Service (Conditions of Employment)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next expects to meet the civil service trade unions to discuss changes to the civil service conditions of employment.
    Mr. Luce: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
    Mr. Skinner: The next time the right hon. Gentleman sees the civil service trade union leaders, will he tell them that to get rid of the double standards regarding civil servants and Ministers taking jobs in outside industries top civil servants will be stopped from taking such jobs? That is the best around the problem and would be appreciated by the millions outside this place. A ban on such

    687
    appointments should not apply for two years only, and Cabinet Ministers should be treated in the same way. It would also not be a bad idea if every Member of Parliament had one job, and one job only. The moonlighting should be stopped.
    Mr. Luce: We are talking about people who have retired from the civil service or retired Ministers. The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the fact that many of
    688
    them have talents to offer the country. Just as many Labour ex-Ministers—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees, but Lord Glenamara, Lord Robens, Lord Marsh and many others, whose talents were available, have served in the private and public sector. So long as propriety is maintained—that is the rule with the civil service—those talents should be available to the private sector.

Ozone Layer (London Conference)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the second meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol on substances that damage the ozone layer, which the United Kingdom hosted and chaired in London last week under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme and which was opened by the Prime Minister.
I am delighted to say that the agreement reached at the meeting marks a major step forward in the global effort to deal with the ozone problem. The parties agreed that chlorofluorocarbons should be phased out by 2000, with intermediate cuts of 50 per cent. compared with 1986 levels by 1995, and 85 per cent. by 1997. We also agreed that halons should he phased out by 2000, except for agreed essential uses, with an intermediate cut of 50 per cent. by 1995.
Those two agreements represent a substantial tightening of the controls in the protocol. Before the London meeting the only requirements were a return to 1986 production and consumption levels by 1989–90 for CFCs and 1992 for halons, and a 50 per cent. cut for CFCs by 1998–99. Controls on two other ozone-depleting chemicals—carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform—were also agreed. Use of carbon tetrachloride will be phased out completely by 2000, with an intermediate cut of 85 per cent. by 1995. Use of methyl chloroform will be reduced to 30 per cent. of current levels by 1995 and 70 per cent. by 2000, and it will be phased out completely by 2005. Neither of those chemicals was controlled under the protocol previously.
Despite that tightening, several countries, including ourselves, would like to have gone further and faster. In particular, a number of countries argued that we should ban CFCs by 1997. We think that this would be a wholly acceptable target provided that there was an exemption for essential medical uses—for example, medical aerosols. We shall be pressing the European Commission to bring forward an amending regulation to provide for this within the Community as soon as possible. We shall be returning to this issue on a global basis in 1992—the parties agreed that there should be a review of the CFC controls then, with the aim of accelerating the phase-out schedule.
We also reached agreement on a financial mechanism under which developed countries will meet the incremental costs that developing countries incur in complying with the protocol, and on the technology transfer that will be necessary to enable developing countries to do so. Governments cannot simply guarantee that technology will be transferred, because they do not own the technology. But provision was included in the protocol so that if a developing country feels that insufficient financial support or transfer of technology threatens its ability to comply with the protocol's provisions it will be able to discuss this issue with the other parties to find a solution.
The outcome of the London meeting is a unique achievement in environmental diplomacy. Never before has the international community reached agreement on this sort of package. It brings together tight controls on chemicals which have previously played a vital role in our economic development, financial support for developing
690
countries, and a commitment to helping those countries adopt and adapt to the new technology that has to be employed in making and using substitute chemicals.
The fact that nearly 60 countries from the developed and developing world succeeded in reaching agreement on this issue, and that the Indian and Chinese delegations both said that they would recommend to their Governments that they join the protocol, marks a new phase in international co-operation on major environmental issues. I believe that, having reached agreement on the ozone problem, we can now move on and try to reach agreement on the other more difficult environmental problems that we face, such as global warming.
Mr. Bryan Gould: The agreement reached last week was an important and welcome step towards the long-term protection of the ozone layer. To the extent that the Secretary of State, as chair of the conference, made his contribution to that outcome, he deserves our congratulations, and the Opposition are glad to offer them. It is particularly welcome that China and India have been brought within the Montreal protocol. I am also pleased that the principle of a fund and financial help to the third world has been established.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the agreement, welcome though it is, does not of itself save the ozone layer? Does he accept Dr. Joe Farman's view that the ozone layer will still suffer a further 20 per cent. destruction by the year 2000? Does he agree with the United Nations working group that every 1 per cent. loss of ozone leads to a 3 per cent. increase in skin cancers and a further 100,000 people going blind?
What is the Secretary of State's estimate of the volume of ozone-depleting gases that will be released between now and the year 2000? Does he agree with the Greenpeace estimate that it will represent half as much again as the total amount already released in the whole of recorded history up to the present?
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that enough help has been offered to the third world, particularly in relation to technology transfer? Will he say more about how the fact that that technology is largely privately owned is to be circumvented? While the British Government's offer of £9 million to the fund is welcome, that must surely be seen in perspective. Is not it the case that it represents just one fifth of the amount that the Department of Energy is currently spending on consultants' fees in the run-up to electricity privatisation?
While the Secretary of State clearly did well in his role as chair of the conference—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Chairman."] I am replying, and I shall choose my language. While the Secretary of State did well in his role as chair, will he acknowledge that the position of the British Government left something to be desired? I refer especially to the mystery of why we are unable to add our signature to the declaration which commits 14 other countries, including all the other members of the European Community, to phasing out these gases by 1997. Is it really true, as his hon. Friend the Minister of State maintains, that we were simply not asked to sign? If it is true that we were excluded in such a way, is not it a rather wounding insight into our image as a country which is always expected to drag its heels and to act on the side of delay?
What are the special medical uses that prevent us from agreeing to a 1997 phase-out, and how are other countries, which have agreed 1997, managing in that respect? How

691
will we ensure that we meet the deadline? Will building foam containing CFCs, for example, be banned? If so, when? Will the chosen instruments be prohibition, or a price mechanism, as recommended by the Pearce report? What support will be given to the recycling of CFCs and what safe methods of disposal will be adopted?
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that green consumerism has been an extremely valuable ally in reducing the use of CFCs, but that Government intervention is now required? I assure him that he will have the Labour party's support for any measures that are put in place now.
Mr. Patten: I thank the hon. Gentleman, parenthetically, for his kind parenthetical observations.
It will probably take the next half century to save the ozone layer. Under the previous protocol, it was estimated that chlorine loading in the atmosphere would rise from today's level of 3.5 parts per billion to about 5.9 parts per billion by the year 2040. Under the terms of the new, tighter protocol we are talking about an increase which will peak at just over present levels in 1997, and will then fall towards the year 2040. Levels should fall to about three parts per billion by the year 2040 and continue to fall thereafter. We may be able to achieve a better result, but that will obviously depend on whether we can encourage others to tighten up regulations and targets in the way we would like. Those estimates are on the pessimistic side.
Nevertheless, we expect substantial improvement in chlorine loading, which will fall back to the levels that existed before the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic was discovered. We expect a substantial improvement, but it will take quite a long time.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we were providing enough help. Our contribution to the interim fund for the next three years is based on the United Nations formula. No one at the conference did not welcome the contribution that we were proposing. I have no doubt that after the interim fund ends we shall be considering a further longer-term fund, which will provide financial assistance. We also want to ensure technology transfer as far as we can, but that tends to be a curious portmanteau expression used to describe things which are tradeable. Under the existing aid programmes, technology transfer is encouraged: licensing agreements, technical co-operation and training programmes, and the purchase of patents are all funded by aid.
The hon. Gentleman was wrong in his remark about the United Kingdom Government's position compared with that of the rest of the European Community. Four member states of the Community signed the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred, not 11. Among those countries that did not sign and do not have their names on the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred are France, Italy and the Republic of Ireland, which at the moment holds the presidency of the Community. We have no differences with the rest of the Community about wishing to phase out CFCs by 1997.
I suspect that one reason why we were not approached to sign the statement was that I was chairing the conference and trying to provide as broad an agreement as possible. Other member states may have concluded that it would be wrong to press Britain to take a partisan position
692
during the conference. Let there be no doubt that we are committed to phasing out CFCs by 1997, except for special medical uses.
The hon. Gentleman asked to what sort of medical uses I referred. I mentioned medical aerosols in my statement. If the hon. Gentleman knows anybody who suffers from asthma, he will rapidly find examples of medical aerosols.
I could refer to other issues involving toxicity testing and, alas, the fact that no alternative has yet been found for halons for use in aircraft, in manned computer centres or for putting out fires. There is also difficulty in producing enough of an adequate substance for use in refrigerators. However, I will not go into those matters in detail.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government need to encourage greater recycling. I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside opened the plant that Imperial Chemical Industries has started for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that green consumerism has helped a great deal. I hope that the green labelling scheme, which we are pressing in the European Community, will help in that and other areas. We look to European Community regulations to help the Government to achieve tougher and tighter targets. I shall be asking the next presidency of the European Community Environment Council to take urgent and early steps on that issue.
Sir Peter Emergy: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on his chairmanship of the conference? I thank him for his reference to asthmatics, because, being one myself, I am aware that the issue is of great importance to them.
Is not it true that one of the greatest problems of chlorine in the atmosphere arises in European nations that we used to describe as being behind the iron curtain? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the EEC considers giving assistance with the financial problems faced by those nations in dealing with the industrial problem, which is both great and severe?
Mr. Patten: I was extremely pleased that a number of central and eastern European countries were represented at the meeting in London last week for example, Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The European Community needs to give as much assistance as possible to countries in central and eastern Europe to enable them to cope with their environmental problems, and that includes the depletion of the ozone layer.
Mr. Peter Shore: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on making such welcome progress in phasing out CFCs and, in particular, on bringing China and India into the agreement. He would be the first to recognise that the crucial element in their agreement is that there should be an adequate transfer of technology. It is on that point that I feel that the position is not yet as clear or as definite as the House would wish. What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with companies such as ICI—there are few CFC producers in the United Kingdom—to obtain their agreement to the necessary transfer of technology, either through establishing subsidiaries in the case of India, or through licensing agreements in other cases?
Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman is right, and I thank him for what he said about the difficulties of

693
ensuring adequate top technology transfer. One important element in the agreement is that it brings together the issues of compliance and of technology transfer in a way that is acceptable not only to developed countries but—and it is slightly more to the point in this context—to developing countries. The Government have had a number of discussions with ICI, just as Governments of other countries have had discussions with their chemical producers. With reasonable good will on the part both of the firms concerned and of developing countries, it should be possible to get round some of the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman identified.
For example, as part of our aid programme—it was part of an aid agreement that I signed with India last year—we have already done an extremely good study on the costs to India of CFC substitution and ways in which we should set about helping it to meet those costs and deal with the necessary technology. It involves a number of elements, not least how early the Indians can take action, and how much they can do to promote recycling. I have no doubt that companies such as ICI are keen to discuss with Governments such as the Government of India how they can transfer technology in a way that does not discourage them from investment in substitution.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I join in welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement and the personal commitment that preceded his chairmanship of this important conference in London. I also welcome the fact that both India and China have been brought in, and the opening that he announced for even more rapid progress over the next decade or so.
My right hon. Friend has already acknowledged that the consumer movement played a large part in paving the way to the conference. What advice, apart from the labelling scheme, would he give to consumers, recognising that the responsibility for reducing the use of ozone-depleting chemicals rests not just with Government but with household consumers and buyers?
Mr. Patten: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. It is important to pay tribute as well to the work of the United Nations Environmental Programme in general and to Dr. Tolba, the executive director, in particular. He did an admirable job in moving along the discussion in the past few months and in getting us to the situation in which we could reach agreement last week.
Consumers have helped, through the pressure that they have brought to bear, to ensure the more rapid phasing out of aerosol sprays. I hope that consumers will turn their attention to recycling, for example, of CFCs in refrigerators. They can ensure that, when they replace their refrigerator, if possible, their retailer takes back their old regrigerator and has the CFCs contained in it adequately recycled through one of the schemes.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The international agreement and the level of it are welcome. It is appropriate that there has been a unique agreement, given the uniquely severe and urgent problem. However, the Secretary of State has failed to achieve his targets, as set out in his press release of 14 June, in which he said that the objective was to achieve the most rapid possible cuts in and consumption and the most demanding timetable for reduction of CFCs. We should have set an example. We
694
should have said that we were committed to a 1997 phase out at worst, or even one in 1995, and even allowing for the exemption on medical aerosols.
Given that many of us feel, like Joe Farman, who discovered the ozone hole above the Antarctic, that the results of the conference were very disappointing, will the Secretary of State look again at the Government's policy of blocking in the Commons the Bill promoted by my noble Friend Lady Robson that got through the other House? Will they introduce in this House in the next Session of Parliament a Bill that commits us to the most urgent possible target for the elimination of CFCs?
Mr. Patten: I hope that we shall be committed, with agreement on the European Community regulation, to phasing out by 1997, with the qualification that I mentioned earlier. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, while properly stressing the urgency of this issue, should overlook some of the real problems in providing substitution, one of which is adequate toxicity testing. It is simply not good enough, for example, to tell people in electronic engineering who are using solvents that they should use alternatives that have not yet been properly tested. That would not be reasonable. There are other problems, to which I have already referred, relating to halons, and the medical arguments. These are not being paraded as excuses for inaction, but are being pointed to as reasons why we cannot go even faster. Anybody in his right mind would want to get rid of CFCs tomorrow.
Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is gratifying that he is receiving accolades from Members on both sides of the House for what has been achieved? Will he say a word or two about the methods of monitoring and enforcement of what has been agreed?
Mr. Patten: Of course. Monitoring and regulation are extremely important parts of the protocol. A special committee will be set up under the terms of the protocol, comprising some of the countries that agreed to it, which will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the protocol. In addition, we shall have our own reporting procedures within the European Community to make sure that we achieve the targets. My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right in noting that one of the major considerations in all environmental diplomacy will be making absolutely certain that, having signed agreements, people keep them. I suspect that that will become an even greater problem when we start discussing other greenhouse gases.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I join in congratulating the Minister on the further progress that has been made in the new agreement. Will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the comments of Dr. Joe Farman that, even under the new arrangements, ozone depletion will continue and the ozone layer around the northern hemisphere over Britain and the United States will decrease by 20 per cent. by the year 2000? When we talk about phasing out CFCs by the year 2000, are we not in a similar position to a smoker who smokes 100 cigarettes a day and is told to give up because he risks getting cancer? Should not there be much greater urgency

695
internationally towards phasing out by 1995 or 1997? Frankly, if we had any sense, we would stop using those products virtually straight away.
Mr. Patten: Although metaphors are valuable in political debate, the hon. Gentleman's chosen metaphor is not wholly accurate. Speaking as a former smoker, I found it possible to go from smoking 30 cigarettes a day to zero overnight, encouraged by the existence of two ulcers. CFCs are rather a different issue.
Although it would be nice to stop any use tomorrow, that is not possible, but we have introduced new and much tougher targets. I hope that when we review those targets in 1992 we shall be able to toughen the ones that we agreed last week still further. I pointed out earlier that the new agreement would mean that chlorine loading in the atmosphere would peak by 1997 and start to fall thereafter. Under the previous protocol we were talking about chlorine loading increasing from 3.5 to 5.9 parts per billion by the year 2040. However, even if we were to stop using CFCs now, we should be talking about the problem for some time in future because of the concentration of chlorine in the atmosphere. It will take quite some time to deal with that extremely important and difficult problem.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent agreement, and, in particular, on the attachment of China and India to it. At a more mundane level, will he bear in mind the importance of continuing to encourage local authorities such as Gedling to look for ways of setting up a system of reclaiming domestic fridges and large industrial freezer units which contain damaging gases which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere?
Mr. Patten: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Local authorities which have taken the action to which my hon. Friend has referred are to be warmly congratulated. I hope that many more will follow their example, and, as I said earlier, that retailers will do all that they can to promote recycling.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister tell us exactly when we will get the Government system of green labelling? If the EEC is still dragging its feet, could not we ensure that all ozone-damaging products are clearly labelled as such when they are sold in Britain and when they are exported so that consumers can move rather faster than the Government and other international groups?
Mr. Patten: I think, not least because of the creation of the single market, that there is a strong argument for a Europewide scheme of green labelling. We have been pressing for that, and I should like to see one agreed and, if possible, established by the end of next year. If we do not make such progress on a Community level, we shall have to introduce our own scheme for this country. It would be better if we had a scheme that applied across the Community.
Mr. Simon Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of his achievements has been in harnessing the international community to produce an agreement that is more far reaching than many people thought could be achieved? He has confounded and
696
wrong-footed the professional moaners who carp about things being too little, too late. Notwithstanding the monitoring and reporting systems in the agreement, are there any more precise safeguards to ensure that countries cannot backslide on keeping to the agreed deadlines?
Mr. Patten: The protocol provides adequate safeguards on backsliding. As I said to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), it will be possible for countries that believe that they are not receiving adequate help with technology transfer through the financial mechanism to take the issue back to the other parties under the protocol, which is reasonable.
In the next few years, environmental diplomacy will raise issues of the greatest sensitivity to individual countries. It will draw attention to the different judgments that countries make about these matters and the problems that they face. We shall achieve the agreements that we need only if we start diplomacy without grandstanding or slagging one another off. These issues must be handled with humility on all sides.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Minister back to the reply that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on the important question of technology transfers? To many, it appears that there is a dangerous loophole in the agreement, because the technology is held by a few multinational companies. Developing countries which understandably wish to promote the development of refrigerator-making industries and so on will have to pay much for that technology, unless they apply to an as yet unquantified fund held by the Commission or the convention.
Will the Minister assure us that there wil be no delay in ensuring a rapid transfer of technology, for example, to allow the Indian Government to promote the building of a new refrigerator plant, which is now planned, using non-CFC material rather than the obviously dangerous CFCs? If this loophole continues, many of the achievements in getting people together will be weakened, if not destroyed altogether.
Mr. Patten: The fund is not unquantifiable. We have agreed on a figure for the interim three-year-old period of S240 million, including resources for India and China. Subsequent commitments to the fund may need to be much more substantial, depending on the progress that we make and on the precise costs of CFC substitution.
As I said earlier, the expression "technology transfer" tends to be used rather loosely, ignoring the fact that when talking about technology transfer one is talking about items which are tradeable, which are sold between one company and others or between one country and others. I suppose that that is a rather confusing concept for some Opposition Members—I do not mean to be offensive—who would argue that the multinationals should be nationalised; socialism is still on one country's agenda. It should be possible, with a modicum of good will, to overcome the problems identified by the hon. Gentleman through licensing agreements and joint ventures. There are plenty of examples of those agreements being funded within our existing aid programmes; I concluded one or two in a more benign past.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have an obligation to protect the business. There is to be a debate on a Select Committee report on aid to eastern Europe. Some of those hon. Members who are rising seek to take part in it, so I shall allow two more questions from each side of the House. We must then move on. Undoubtedly we shall return to this subject.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend referred to the fund and will be aware of the comments by the Indian Government about the shortage of funds. He has presided over a major achievement. Will he comment on the size of the fund that will result from his achievements at the conference and on the adequacy of the fund for countries such as India if they are to be able to meet their requirements under the protocol?
Mr. Patten: As I said, the size of the interim fund is about $240 million over three years, but we expect further contributions to a fund after that. Under an aid agreement with India which I signed last year, we have promoted a study of the costs of CFC substitution in India. The distinguished Indian Minister, Mrs. Gandhi, who made a substantial and distinctive contribution to our discussions last week, referred in some press interviews to a cost of $340 million for CFC substitution programmes in India. That is the highest figure suggested by Touche Ross, which suggested in its report that, with earlier action and more recycling it might be possible for the Indians to cope with the CFC substitution problems for $120 million. I guess that somewhere between those figures there is a realistic amount which the Indians will need to comply with the protocol. What delighted me almost more than anything else was the fact that India and China reckoned, at the end of a fortnight's argument and discussion, that they could bring themselves to agree to the terms of the protocol.
Mr. Gavin Strang: I acknowledge the contributions by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to this historic international agreement on a major environmental issue. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the effect of the implementation of the protocol by India and China will be crucial. To many Opposition Members, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the transfer of the technology of the production process to these developing countries could have been more robust. Surely we will not allow the multinational companies to drag their feet. The sums of money that will be given to India and China in the short term are relatively small. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be acceptable to us if they used that money to buy CFC substitute products from advanced economies.
Mr. Patten: It is worth noting that the substitutes for CFCs were not discovered by politicians and will not be marketed by Ministers who sign agreements. They were discovered and will be marketed by the same multinational companies that are still some of the villains in the Opposition's arguments. I do not see the companies concerned in that light. ICI has behaved with commendable public spiritedness. Like the rest of us, these companies want CFC substitutes to be used to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of economic and social progress without depleting the stratospheric ozone.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What measures are in the protocol to deal with the destruction of exhausted air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment
698
in China, India and the countries throughout the far east which have very hot climates? What will happen to the equipment that must be destroyed? Will those measures be funded?
Mr. Patten: As I said, the study on India, which we helped to fund, referred to the considerable progress that could be made by the encouragement of precisely the sort of recycling to which the hon. Gentleman referred. One of the first steps that we must take with all developing countries is to agree on a realistic programme for both CFC substitution and recycling. The potential impact that those countries' economic development could have on the problem if we do not assist them makes one realise how important it is to give them all the help that we possibly can.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that CFCs are used so widely because of their non-toxic and non-flammable properties? Will he confirm that, while protecting the ozone layer, the Government will make absolutely sure that they protect factory workers and other citizens against possible less safe substitutes?
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is quite right. The importance of taking precautions is relevant to CFC substitution, as it is to other matters. The damage that was done inadvertently by the invention, manufacture and use of CFCs, which were initially regarded as a great scientific breakthrough, should make us particularly cautious in respect of the testing that is required for CFC substitutes. That is why I stressed toxicity testing.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 10139/89 relating to municipal waste water treatment be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Patnick.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Rent Book (Forms of Notice) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1067) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Rent Officers (Additional Functions) (No. 2) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1068) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all realise the pressure of business, but we have just had an important statement on an issue that affects the future of the planet. Only two more hon. Members wished to ask questions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know. It would be very tempting to call all those hon. Members who rise on questions and statements.
Mr. Corbyn: But it was only two.
Mr. Speaker: Many other hon. Members wish to take part in today's debate. Even if I could impose a 10-minute limit on speeches, I should not be able to call all those who wish to participate. The House must accept that it is only fair to give hon. Members who wish to take part in the main debate the opportunity to do so.

699
Two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will be making speeches, and if they set a good example to the rest of the House I may be able to call a good many—though perhaps not all—of those hon. Members who wish to participate. Again, I ask for brief speeches.

ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY, 2ND PART]
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES 1990–91
    Foreign and Commonwealth Office

      EASTERN EUROPE
      [Relevant documents: Third Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1989–90 on FCO/ODA Expenditure 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 233).
      European Community Documents Nos. 9090/89 on Aid to Poland and Hungary and 10788/89 and 4542/90 on medium term financial assistance for Hungary.]

      Class II, Vote 2
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £74,290,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc to certain international organisations, certain grants in aid, special payments and assistance, scholarships, Military aid and sundry other grants and services.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
      4.13 pm
      Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is grateful to the House for giving us this opportunity to discuss the Committee's third report on Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Overseas Development Administration expenditure, and to focus particularly on matters relating to assistance to eastern Europe. The sections of the report dealing with the know-how fund and support for eastern European economic development will be the main focus of attention. It is worth pointing out, however, that the other issues raised in the report relate directly to what is happening in eastern Europe and to the whole range of other issues of concern to the House, including environmental pollution, which we have just discussed.
      Paragraph 7 of our report examines the problems of Foreign and Commonwealth Office staffing, which have arisen because of the need to establish stronger posts and a greater effort in the new democracies of eastern Europe. Some changes in the dispositions and staffing policies of the Foreign Office have already been announced and it is clear that further changes will be needed if we are to meet those pressures.
      In paragraph 9 of the report, we return to the subject of visa policy—a perennial problem and a frequent cause of complaint to those who visit eastern Europe, where the granting of visas to the United Kingdom is still too slow and there are too many unacceptable delays. We look forward to a time when the visa arrangements for eastern European countries are abolished. That would have to be achieved on a Europewide basis and I know that Ministers have been examining that possibility.
      We considered the role of the BBC's World Service both generally and in relation to its role in the liberalisation processes in eastern Europe. The general view of the House would be that the World Service has performed wonders and that it has played an excellent role in assisting the process of democracy to emerge in eastern Europe and in establishing the work, role and reputation

      701
      of this country. I hope that all hon. Members will support me when I say that we hope that the financial problems facing the World Service in trying to catch up with inflation—admittedly, that is a problem we all face—can be satisfactorily resolved so that the highly worthwhile efforts and the very valuable return per pound spent through adequate support for the World Service are fully recognised in future.
      The Select Committee considered the Wooding review into how we can encourage east European and Soviet studies in British universities. We expressed some disappointment and unease about the fact that, despite certain undertakings by Ministers, the full commitment to implement the review has not happened and there seems to be a certain amount of buck-passing who should find the funds to push the matter forward to ensure that we have adequate Soviet and eastern European studies in our universities. Above all, the Select Committee considered the work of the British Council and, in particular, its work in setting up offices in eastern Europe and encouraging English language teaching to ensure that English becomes the second language of eastern Europe.
      The know-how funds are part of a much bigger jigsaw. The G24 advanced industrialised countries have already pledged about $13 billion in loans and credits to eastern Europe. That includes $2 billion for Poland and Hungary from Japan, $300 million from the United States and an enormous programme of activities, and support from the European Community to which we contribute directly. All that is embraced in the so-called PHARE—the Poland-Hungary assistance for the reconstruction of economies—system of support for eastern Europe. That is a wide-ranging and fast-developing set of programmes ranging from food aid in the short term to meet immediate emergencies in eastern Europe to vocational training, massive projects for cleaning up the environment—which are certainly needed in eastern Europe—raising loans for infrastructure, opening markets in western Europe for eastern European goods and a host of other developments. In addition, there is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which is to be located in London.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking for a few minutes and I had thought that with the passage of time some of his friends from the Select Committee might turn up to listen to him, especially as Mr. Speaker said earlier that quite a number of hon. Members wished to take part in this debate. I do not think that I am mistaken in saying that only one other member of the Select Committee is present to listen to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I wish to address my remarks through the right hon. Gentleman to the Chair. It is a bit odd that in this great debate for the general good and so forth, when we want to talk about the ozone layer there is only one other member of the Select Committee present to listen to the right hon. Member for Guildford. That says a lot about this whole panjangle.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was addressed to me. The object of these debates is to give hon. Members who are not members of Select Committees and other hon. Members who are not fortunate enough to visit these places an opportunity to express their views. Of course, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has also recently returned from eastern Europe.
      Mr. Howell: In the first two minutes of my speech I deliberately mentioned environmental pollution, two or three times, in the hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whose views are greatly valued by the House—he is an expert on environmental matters and sought to intervene earlier—would be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to develop his views at length. Hon. Members hope to hear from him on these issues because his views are relevant to eastern Europe and assistance to it.
      All the programmes of assistance pale into insignificance when compared with the gigantic capital needs of eastern European countries. We are talking not about millions or billions of pounds, but about hundreds of billions of pounds, which will be needed to develop and improve the structures of eastern Europe. Those programmes will have to be financed, at least in part, from the resources of eastern European countries. Incidentally, it is encouraging to note that the East Germans already show signs of saving rather than spending their new-found deutschmarks. Other eastern European countries will need to do the same, but they will require large capital resources, which will put a huge strain on the capital systems of the west. If one is a little gloomy, therefore, one can expect rather high interest rates some way into the 1990s as capital is diverted to eastern Europe as the sums involved are absolutely huge.
      In thinking about our assistance, we have been focusing on Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but a far greater problem stands behind them—that of the Soviet Union and what, if anything, can be done to meet the large and rapidly growing needs of that struggling, sinking and disintegrating society and economy. The needs are bottomless. There is an understandable view that the Soviet Union will have to stew for the time being, until it works out its new political order and gets some means of receiving and making use of assistance from the west which many people fear that it does not have at the moment.
      I agree with those who say that simply throwing enormous sums of money at the Soviet Union in new loans and grants at this stage would probably be a complete waste and cause only temporary easement before the whole economy continued its downward path to penury.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, once the Soviet Union has shown the democratic direction in which it wishes to go, one of the beginnings of help could be the extension of the know-how fund to the Soviet Union, whereby we would use our initiative and managment know-how to encourage the development of private industry and private initiative, which would help to fight the shortage of consumer goods which patently exists within the Soviet Union at present.
      Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—once the Soviet Union shows the beginnings. The first beginning must be some currency and financial reform. In a sense, the Soviet Union needs a major currency union with the rest of the world—that would put it in a position to receive effective assistance from the west—through the creation of a hard rouble, just as East Germany has had a currency union with West Germany and received a hard currency so that it can attract investment and begin to develop. The only hope for the Soviet Union is the development of a hard currency, which would require vast international

      703
      effort and support. That subject is now being considered and ruminated on and possibly mobilised in the International Monetary Fund, the world bank and other circles.
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is my right hon. Friend really saying that it would be possible to lock all the great currencies in the world into some fixed mechanism?
      Mr. Howell: I was not dealing with that fascinating aspect of the subject. I was merely indicating the virtue and necessity of a hard currency. I think that my hon. Friend would be the first to recognise that that is the only basis upon which one can begin to get economic growth. and reform. Without a hard currency, there is little hope of the Soviet Union being able to check its downward slide. Much as I should like to discuss aspects of exchange rate policy with my hon. Friend, who is an expert in such matters, my present proposition is no more adventurous than that which I have advanced.
      Any western aid to the Soviet Union should be geared to changes of the kind that I have described. The goal is a hard currency. Meanwhile, suggestions by European Ministers of billions of dollars for the Soviet Union may be good rhetoric but will not have much effect.
      Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the Soviet Union has not embarked on the reforms that we agree are desirable to trigger resources, there might be a case for giving it an incentive in the form of limited aid from the know-how funds, perhaps to spread the English language to which he has already referred? Such a move would help the leader of the Soviet Union.
      Mr. Howell: I shall deal later with the promotion of English as a second language. Anything that we can do in that respect would be valued in the Soviet Union and everywhere else, not just in a high-minded sense but because it would further the prosperity and interests of Britain. The other country that was in our minds at the weekend was East Germany—the German Democratic Republic.
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Howell: Does my hon. Friend wish to ask a question about the Soviet Union?
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Yes. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a great deal of sentimental twaddle is talked about Mr. Gorbachev and what he wants to do for Russia and for the world? Chancellor Kohl wants to invest £20 billion of the money of all of us in Russia to save Mr. Gorbachev. Until Mr. Gorbachev stops trying to improve communism and attempts to change the communist system, stops giving Cuba $5 billion of aid which he does not have and stops spending four times the amount that we spend on defence, why the devil should we give Russia money that it will use to beat us?
      Mr. Howell: We do not necessarily want to save any individual politican, whether it be Mr. Gorbachev or anybody else—it is up to the Russians to decide whom they want to run their country. However, it is palpably
      704
      sensible to encourage reasonably bloodless democratic development in all the Soviet republics. If we fail to do that and leave the Soviet stew to bubble over, creating a chaos of tribal and national wars which will spread to central and eastern Europe, we shall create great trouble for ourselves. I agree, however, that we should not back individuals but should encourage the democratic process as best we can wherever it shows signs of growing.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that many Soviet economists have argued against large quantities of western aid at this stage, if only because it would underpin Soviet institutions which they believe can be removed only by financial disciplines? We should recognise that and, if necessary, delay aid in the hope that in finally allocating it we can determine the nature of those institutions.
      Mr. Howell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I would put it a little more positively. Rather than saying, "Let us do nothing until," I would say, "Let us try to work with the many Soviet economists who think that financial reform is needed to see ways in which that reform can be underpinned by western aid." Until something like that happens, there is no point in underpinning or underwriting the present chaos and inefficiency. Money would simply be lost.
      I have given way too often. That may count against me on your score board Mr. Speaker, although I hope not too severely. I shall now talk about eastern Germany, which is in the news and which is about to become one vast construction site as the bulldozer and the deutschmark move in. One must marvel at how in three and a half months the German bureaucratic machine has achieved miracles and installed in East Germany an entirely new currency system, entirely new networks of financial control and an entirely new VAT system. In effect, a new official structure is already up and running as of yesterday morning.
      Mr. Skinner: And some inflation.
      Mr. Howell: It is a fantastic development. Whether it will also produce inflation remains to be seen.
      Britain should certainly keep a close eye on East Germany and consider giving it assistance and investing in it. A huge programme is now under way to privatise thousands of small firms and all the large firms, in an effort to break the key log jam—that of private ownership and the problem of who owns the property and title to firms, businesses and real estate in East Germany. A programme has been set up through which a public trustee, the Treuhandanstalt, with an international supervisory board which will include someone from the United Kingdom, will attempt to dispense land on a legal title basis and establish that any land purchased by new enterprises belongs to them and ownership will not be thrown into question. In that matter, the British have been invited to be involved in the most intimate part of the transformation of East Germany and I hope that we can play our part vigorously.
      Hope for East Germany turns on achieving the right balance between keeping wages low enough to attract investment without causing strikes, pressures and anger or making immigration to the west resume as people see higher wages over the way, and setting wages too high,

      705
      creating massive unemployment as whole industries are wiped out because they are uncompetitive. The Germans must get that balance right. If they do, and as they do, we should be able to help them.
      The picture in eastern Europe is of a whole range of new countries striving for a free market, privatisation, liberalised trade and free enterprise. Of course, expectations are miles too high. It is believed that, as in East Germany this weekend, the magic of currency reform and pouring concrete can somehow change living standards, but it will not happen overnight. The House will agree that for our own commercial interests we must be closely involved in that process. Eastern European countries are not faraway countries of which we know nothing but our next-door neighbours in the European land mass.
      What are the United Kingdom's interests? What is our role, and how can we strengthen it? The estimates report from the Select Committee attempted to address those questions and gave three categories of answers. The first related to personnel and language teaching. We should recognise that British professional personnel such as accountants, managers, administrators and even, I fear, lawyers are in huge demand in eastern Europe. Perhaps we could export a few lawyers from here. There is a tremendous feeling in eastern Europe that the British professional services can provide the habits of administration and ways for countries at last to get going again as free economies. As we point out in paragraph 42 of the report, there is great demand for British expert consultants to advise on the reorganisation of industries, businesses, utilities, and so on. Here I must declare an interest as energy adviser to a leading firm of British consultants involved in eastern Europe. I declare both an interest and some knowledge that the demand for their services is great.
      On the language side, there is a world to conquer. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we have the opportunity to make English the second language of eastern Europe. The Russian textbooks and grammars are being carted out of the classrooms and there is a call to bring in English teachers, books and teaching methods. The British Council told the members of the Select Committee that it foresees the need for 100,000 English teachers over the present decade, with 20,000 in Poland alone. It would be crazy not to respond to that demand as vigorously as we possibly can, even if it means switching resources from other areas. As I have said, the first category is people and languages.
      The second category is private investment flows, which will follow language familiarity, expertise and administrative and legal reform. There, too, we must play our part. At present, West Germany is leading the pack in almost every country, and especially in East Germany.
      The third category is our part in the multilateral support efforts that I have already mentioned. These will be made through the European Community, the European regional development fund, the International Monetary Fund and sensible programmes of debt reduction. We cannot continue with the line that the countries of central and eastern Europe should be asked to swim into the deep water of democracy and free markets while wearing concrete collars of impossible debts. I refer to the debts which were run up in the past by the communist regimes. There is a case for recognising the difference between debts incurred by incompetent communists in the past and the
      706
      need for those countries to strike out without seeing all their foreign currency disappear in debt servicing at every stage. We must adopt a balanced approach.
      I hope—the Select Committee had this hope after considering the issues—that the opportunities in eastern Europe will be fully recognised. In due course we might look to the Government for a comprehensive statement on the United Kingdom's strategy in terms of the fantastic and unfolding drama of eastern Europe. Eastern arid central Europe are part of our culture and we can learn much from them. We should not assume too patronising a stance. In other words, we must not assume that the learning is all one way. We have a great deal to learn from the skills, energies and genius that are to be found within the central and eastern European countries. In eastern Europe we are looking at a vast and developing market of about 120 million people, most of whom are highly skilled. As a trading nation, we must be firmly established in that market. I hope that the comments in the report and my comments this afternoon will be of some small help in that direction.
      4.37 pm
      Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I welcome some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), but he would not expect me to be in agreement with everything that he has said. I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with his remarks about the BBC World Service. We are all conscious of the excellent job that it does with only limited resources. It is essential that its resources are strengthened to take into account the important extra work that it will be called upon to undertake.
      Any discussion of assistance to eastern Europe must be seen against a backcloth of some of the most startling political and economic changes that have been seen this century, with countries moving from central planning to social democratic market-oriented economies. In eastern Europe there is excitement, uncertainty and some chaos, but everywhere there is hope. Britain, along with other countries that are giving aid, must take account of several developments that are, or will be, common to each country in eastern Europe. They include the creation of pricing systems and mixed economies that are based in part on private ownership and enterprise, the creation of capital markets, movement towards currency convertibility and the opening of internal markets to foreign competition.
      We must be sure also, as the right hon. Member for Guildford said, to take account of the differences between the various countries—differences in history and tradition and in how the revolution was brought about in each country. That means that the pace and type of reform and the role of the western donors will vary from country to country.
      We have all been shocked by the sight of Romanian orphans dying from AIDS, Soviet citizens queuing for hours just for a loaf of bread and Polish factories poisoning the air and water for miles around. I was glad that, earlier, the Secretary of State for the Environment made particular mention of the assistance that will be given to improve the environment in eastern European countries. The damage to the environment caused by old, inefficient industrial processes has been immense. In Hungary, even if further pollution by chemicals stopped tomorrow, chemicals would still flow through the water

      707
      table for the next 80 years. In East Germany and Czechoslovakia, unsafe nuclear power stations and energy production from lignite—a polluting brown coal—threaten the environment. It is therefore essential that aid responds to the needs of those countries for a better, cleaner and safer environment.
      The Labour party is pleased to note that the forthcoming know-how programme for East Germany will include advice from Britain on decommissioning clapped-out nuclear power stations. I sincerely hope—I was pleased to note that the Secretary of State for the Environment also touched on this—that eastern Europe, unlike some other developing countries, will receive only the cleanest and up-to-date technology from Britain. In India, for example, British aid paid for British companies to build power stations without sulphur-cleaning flues. As a result, those power stations are now causing acid rain.
      The scale of aid is bound to be considerable, but the resources must be found. The annual report of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe looked at a possible Marshall plan for eastern Europe that would cost some £17 billion for four years. In January, the European Community outlined a programme that would cost about £14 billion a year. It is a tragedy that sums of that order seem to be too big and too challenging for the Government and the Prime Minister to take on board. The pace of change is simply too much for them. The Prime Minister, in particular, is out of sync and out of sympathy with the needs and challenges of the age in which we live.
      Mr. Budgen: Is it the Labour party's policy to press for such expenditure? No doubt it would be welcomed in many quarters in Europe and it might be politically attractive in this country. If that is the Labour party's policy, by how much is our contribution to the EEC likely to go up as a result?
      Mrs. Clwyd: As the debate develops I shall answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions. If he cares to spend a little money on purchasing the Labour party's new policy document, he will find that the Labour party supports the idea of a Marshall plan. As my speech develops he will also learn about the other things we support, but he will be aware that we are in favour of contributing 0·7 per cent. of gross national product to overseas aid. We intend to achieve that target in the first five years of a Labour Government.
      It is a tragedy that the sums of aid needed appear to upset the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), especially as I shall seek to prove that they need not hit the British taxpayer's pocket.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Where will the money come from?
      Mrs. Clwyd: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, he will find out.
      There are limits on resources and none of us would pretend otherwise. It is imperative, however, that aid, whether in the form of grants, know-how, equity financing, joint ventures or balance of payments support, should be carefully targeted. It should be used to build the structures to ensure that funds are productively used so that loans generate long-term revenue.
      It is precisely because resources are scarce that third-world countries are anxious that the ideological
      708
      political pressure for reform in eastern Europe should not encourage western countries to give those countries aid at the expense of the third world. In short, the aid given to eastern Europe must be in addition to that given to the third world. I hope that the Minister can clarify the position by assuring us that aid to eastern Europe will not be at the third world's expense, not just this year—we have already had some assurances about that—but in the years to come.
      It is not surprising that third-world countries fear that more aid from Britain to eastern Europe means less for them because they have seen the Government renege on their aid commitments every year since 1979. Far from meeting the United Nations overseas aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, Britain's contribution has fallen to less than half of that target. If the aid had remained at the level achieved when the Labour Government left office in 1979, the third world would be £8 billion better off than it is today. I am glad to note that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs strongly recommends that the Government should set a timetable for achieving the UN target. Only by doing so can the Government genuinely demonstrate that aid to eastern Europe is not preventing Britain from meeting its commitments to the poorest countries.
      Regrettably, the record of aid to eastern Europe so far shows that the performance of the British Government and British industry is far from impressive. One of the stumbling blocks is the Prime Minister, who, despite her love-ins with President Gorbachev, has been slow to realise the significance of what is happening in eastern Europe. Ideologically blinkered, the right hon. Lady has even had the nerve to criticise West Germany and France for providing credits to the Soviet Union. She seemed to fall in line only after President Bush had had to intervene.
      Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, too often view the problems of eastern Europe as opportunities for photo-calls rather than for action. Goodness knows how the embassy in Hungary copes, because, by the end of this year, no fewer than 22 British Ministers, including the Prime Minister, will have visited that country. Not to be outshone, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has been there, too.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): Would the hon. Lady care to remind us about the number of Opposition Members, as well as Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who have also been to the embassy?
      Mrs. Clwyd: Obviously I cannot speak for my hon. Friends, but I am sure that those who contribute to the debate, including members of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, will be ready to tell the right hon. Gentleman about their experiences. I cannot understand why 22 British Ministers felt it necessary to visit the embassy in Hungary.
      Mr. Waldegrave: Has the hon. Lady visited that country and others? I hope she has.
      Mrs. Clwyd: Unfortunately, the Opposition do not have the Government's budget to make such visits possible. We believe in protecting the British taxpayer as far as we can—[Interruption.] I have a suspicion that 20th century grand tours by Ministers are not what eastern Europe needs just now.

      709
      It is important to consider the background of the countries to who aid will be given, starting with East Germany. Yesterday there was German economic and monetary union which was historic not only for Germany but for Europe and the world. It will ensure that aid is fast on its way to East Germany. East Germany reckons that it needs 130 billion deutschmarks for investment between now and 1993. It believes that British firms, with the help and encouragement of the Government, could invest in environmental development work, including water and sewage management, in financial services, hotels and transport, for example, in the railways. East and West Germany are anxious that aid and investment in East Germany should come from countries other than the Federal Republic, but it is inevitable that West Germany should carry the main burden.
      There is also a firm belief in West and East Germany that the British Government have been slow to help and British companies slow to appreciate existing opportunities. One can but hope that the Prime Minister—
      Mr. Tredinnick rose—
      Mrs. Clwyd: I am sorry, but I shall not give way again.
      One can but hope that the Prime Minister, who met the East German Prime Minister last week, will do more to convince British firms that a developing country, which has a hard currency like the deutschmark, presents a unique opportunity for profitable investment. The British Government's know-how scheme for East Germany is, to say the least, bizarre. Although it is not yet under way, it is due to finish when reunification takes place later this year, so it will have a life span of a pathetic few short months.
      Some British commentators fear that German economic and monetary union could go sadly wrong, with inflation taking off in Germany. We believe that such fears will prove groundless largely because the markets have already discounted the possibility by raising real interest rates to 6.5 per cent. German economic and monetary union may be going too fast, and its consequences may not be properly understood by the people of East Germany. Undoubtedly, there will be some dreadful results, with up to 25 or 30 per cent. of the population becoming unemployed. But the speed at which aid and foreign investment takes place could be critical in mitigating the damage.
      This provokes another problem for East Germans, who must ensure that western capitalists do not rape their country and buy it out for the sale of the century. A warning given by the Organisaton for Economic Co-operation and Development in its publication "Economic Outlook" that eastern Europe risks being asset-stripped by western investors is one that we should all take seriously. East Germany needs productive investment that creates real jobs.
      If East Germany is a special case, so too is the Soviet Union, which has special political difficulties and is moving much more slowly towards a social market economy. While the Soviet economy may, at present, be in no state to use the vast sum in aid that it will ultimately need, the immediate provision of credit can obviously help President Gorbachev buy more time for perestroika.
      When the Prime Minister returned from a visit to the Soviet Union recently, instead of suggesting a package of aid and assistance, she came to the House and insulted it
      710
      with an hour-long, condescending and patronising lecture on what a backward country the Soviet Union is—a view shared by some Conservative Members. If reports are true that President Bush is working on guidelines for the United States and other NATO countries, at this week's summit in London, in support of direct economic aid to the Soviet Union, possibly the attitude of the Prime Minister and other Conservative Members will change.
      Unlike some other countries in eastern Europe, the Soviet Union can see little prospect of a significant increase in bank lending from the west or raising funds by the use of securities. In addition, it cannot get bilateral aid from the World bank or the International Monetary Fund because it is not a member of either organisation and does not qualify for their assistance. The sooner that Britain and other countries seek to bring the Soviet Union into the orbit of the world's financial communities, the better.
      Up to now, the Prime Minister has talked of aid only once structural reform has taken place, which is like ordering someone to build a house and offering to pay for the bricks only when the last roof tile is in place.
      Mr.Beaumont-Dark rose—
      Mrs. Clwyd: No, I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman has been muttering throughout my speech and I think that we are all aware of his views.
      In this instance, the Prime Minister has failed to grasp the fact that the house can be built, indeed may only be built, if the bricks are provided in the first place. By comparison, the Dublin communiqué talks of short-term aid and aid for structural reform for the Soviet Union.
      President Mitterrand went public on the Prime Minister's isolation after the Soviet aid package had been opposed by Britain in the discussions. He said:
      "Nobody voted for the British proposal."
      He was particularly scathing about the Prime Minister's position. He described her objections as
      "Britain's penultimate twitch of life."
      He added:
      "we can always count on her to ensure debates are long arid that the decisions taken are always retaken."
      He said that she would be defeated when the aid package was considered at a Rome summit in October. Whatever the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), he will be carried along by the tide of events and his views, and those of some of his hon. Friends, will constitute a lone voice crying in the wilderness.
      It is my understanding that the Soviet Union will get little help from the new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is being set up in London because there will be special limits on lending to the Soviet Union. Will the Minister confirm or deny that? If it is true, it is a miserable state of affairs. It is no wonder that some bankers and Governments in Europe fear that the rouble will soon cease to be convertible, even in the rouble area. The world will let that happen and see President Gorbachev fail at its peril.
      Of the other European countries, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia are in the process of creating democracies, based on mixed economies and market principles. For both Poland and Hungary, the burden of servicing debt payments presents awesome problems. Poland's debt today, standing at $40 billion, is the largest in eastern Europe. My view, shared by some leading bankers in Europe, is that it will be all but impossible for Poland to

      711
      succeed in its endeavours unless both Governments and commercial banks are prepared to write off some of Poland's debt. Will the Government set out and justify their own views on that today?
      Hungary's debt of $20 billion represents the highest per capita debt in Europe. Hungary's position was not helped earlier this year when a clumsy Bank of England report on the debt matrix created a loss of confidence in Hungary's creditworthiness. Partly because of that, Hungary has since had to get help from the Bank for International Settlements to add to its stand-by agreements from the IMF. Will the Minister ask the Governor of the Bank of England, one of the Prime Minister's family friends, to be more careful in future about damaging the prospects for development in other countries?
      The present Hungarian Government say they can repay their debts and are not interested in debt rescheduling or debt forgiveness. I hope that their assessment is correct. Hungary has been engaged in economic experiments for 20 years, and this one certainly deserves to succeed.
      Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady is a spokesperson on aid in general and is asking us to forgive the debts of Poland and Hungary—middle income countries. Therefore, she is also presumably asking us to forgive the debt of all the far lower income countries which she often mentions. Am I right? I want to ascertain the extent of the huge expenditure of which she is talking.
      Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister will have heard the Opposition advance that argument many times, particularly as there seems to be no will on the Government's part to make debt forgiveness a possibility for many developing countries.
      Mr. Giles Radice: Have not the American Government recently announced that they are considering favourably the idea of debt forgiveness for Poland? The United States is Poland's biggest single creditor.
      Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend is perfectly right, and his point is consistently made by Opposition Members.
      Naturally, the Opposition are also pleased about Britain's participation in the Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring programme, which the European Commission is co-ordinating to help Poland and Hungary. We also welcome the food aid given to Poland, and lending through the European investment bank. We also approve of the setting up of the £50 million know-how fund for Poland and the £25 million know-how fund for Hungary, although we have reservations about its operation so far. The evidence, from both the recipient countries and the Foreign Office, seems to be that the know-how fund, particularly for Poland, lacks direction, has been unclear, and has confused the recipient countries.
      An article in The Economist this month evaluates the fund by stating:
      "The most stinging complaint is simple: for expertise read fripperies. The Poles need drains: the know-how Fund has given them seminars … Such criticisms find an echo in Poland, where some claim that money is being wasted, extolling the virtues of the House of Lords, or the subtleties of a free press; they point out that they have a long (albeit submerged) parliamentary tradition, and, thanks to Solidarity, no dearth of first rate journalists."
      712
      We must not forget that eastern European countries have political traditions and the roots of democracy. Some of the criticisms and comments of the right hon. Member for Guildford smacked of a patronising attitude towards the established background of those countries. Eastern European countries need assistance to get those roots to flourish throughout society, and to get everyone, not merely business men, on their feet.
      If eastern European societies are to become truly participatory they will eventually need their own versions of Greenpeace, Oxfam, the British Medical Association, citizens advice bureaux, farmers' associations and even the CBI, along with the many other varied organisations that represent citizens' views and interests.
      The Government should not focus merely on business men and politicians—teaching them English and setting up exchanges—but should help to lay the foundations for a broader link between east and west.
      The varied contributions made by the British Council, Voluntary Service Overseas and the World Service of the BBC all greatly enhance Britain's contribution to eastern European developments, but the Government are not providing those organisations with adequate funds to take advantage of new opportunities, except by cutting their work elsewhere. The key to providing the most effective aid is listening to voices on the ground in eastern Europe. At present, there is concern that there has been too much political control from London and that the advisory committee has been ineffective. We hope to see improvements in the programme for Hungary, which has scarcely started, but which should soon be up to speed.
      The Foreign Office has had some teething problems in getting to grips with its increased work load in eastern Europe. That has led to cutting diplomatic posts in the third world, especially in Latin America and in Africa—a point made in the report by the Select Committee. The Foreign Office has diverted some staff from the Overseas Development Administration to work full time and part time on eastern Europe. Clearly, additional staff are needed at the Foreign Office and the ODA, but not at the expense of the third world.
      I do not want to end my speech on a sour note, but I wonder how the Minister of State responds to the scathing criticisms of the know-how fund in The Times on 1 May:
      "Unfortunately, the Know-How fund does not seem to be connected with a coherent vision of a future Europe … So far, £2 million has been spent and there is nothing much to show for it … Britain is dwarfed by West Germany, overshadowed by France, Austria, and even Italy, in trade with Eastern Europe."
      Changes in eastern Europe perfectly illustrate the need for countries to work together without one dominating another, and for the European Community—I was privileged to be one of the first elected Members of the European Parliament—to develop and extend its borders, as well as the need to recognise that no nation state can go it alone in today's world.
      On our television screens we have seen the tearing down of the wall which divided Europe, the opening of Hungary's borders, and the emergence of Vaclav Havel from the long winter which followed the Prague spring. Britain should now be ready to play a role in such new and immensely challenging developments. When we win the next general election, our imaginative and constructive approach will show how limited and blurred the horizons of the present Government are. The Opposition will see aid to eastern Europe as part of the peace dividend which

      713
      follows the disappearance of the cold war, the iron curtain and the Berlin wall, and as part of all our hopes for the future of the world.
      5.3 pm
      Sir Michael Marshall: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) if only to say that I agree with her about some of the problems of the environment. Hon. Members who have had the chance to see pollution in the Elbe and Danube must recognise the huge task there, which could be a major opportunity for many of our industrial concerns which have special expertise and which could help to resolve such problems.
      I regret that the hon. Lady felt that it was necessary to pitch into party political arguments. There is a genuine job of work for hon. Members on both sides of the House to do.
      Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend reconsider his remarks? It is obvious from the hon. Lady's speech that there is a vast division between the two sides of the House on this issue. If she wishes to emphasise that difference, she does a service to political debate. It is obvious that the Labour party plans substantial expenditure in eastern Europe. Since that inevitably means that it intends to print money or to increase taxation, it is right that the hon. Lady should have raised the temperature and told us where she disagrees with the Conservative party.
      Sir Michael Marshall: I accept what my hon. Friend says about expenditure because, although the hon. Lady said that she would tell us more about it, she did not say precisely what she had in mind.
      I wish to try to find a common cause, at least in the scope of the problem and the opportunities that arise for parliamentarians seeking to address this issue. I am sorry that the hon. Lady attacked the Government about the number of Ministers going to Hungary. She should be aware that, through the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 30 hon. Members have visited four eastern European countries in the past six months, and I greatly welcome that. I want to discuss ways in which we can build on this process. If the hon. Lady reflects on that and on the other initiatives taking place, she will realise that, if anything, the Government lag behind in the number of parliamentary links we have with eastern European countries.
      I make no apology for referring to the IPU, but it does not have a monopoly. There are party-to-party links with eastern Europe and a range of other activities, including the party funding organisation that is being co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Minister with other parties in the House—I hope that he will say more about that in a moment.
      In the past six months the IPU has had seminars and fact-finding missions, which would not have been possible in the short time scale leading up to the elections—and which have now effectively concluded with the Bulgarian elections—without the co-operation of organisations such as the Great Britain-Eastern Europe Centre. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) present, because he chairs the centre, with assistance from Opposition Members.
      I also recognise the work of the Foreign Office, the Central Office of Information, the Clerks to the Overseas Offices of both Houses and organisations such as the Hansard Society, which have all been working in a
      714
      common endeavour to understand the needs of emerging democracies and to understand how funding—which we must consider when debating the estimates—is related to such work. Also I am glad to be able to pay tribute to Mr. Speaker—in his absence. As you will know better than most, Madam Deputy Speaker, he is especially concerned with Speaker-to-Speaker initiatives in eastern Europe, and, as an honorary president of the IPU, in support for all our parliamentary links.
      The factual background is the reason why I picked up the hon. Lady's remarks about the amount of personal contact with eastern Europe. In the past six months, through seminars and exchange visits, 196 Members of both Houses—the vast majority from this House—have been involved in face-to-face and one-to-one discussions with parliamentary candidates or parliamentarians from eastern Europe—a pretty high striking rate. A third of our membership is involved in that process.
      In the six months that followed the Berlin wall coming down, there were flying squad visits by two parliamentarians who went to the Federal Republic and the GDR—which are now emerging as a united Germany. It is important that we try to understand both sides of the German viewpoint. We were able to follow their visits through when parliamentarians from the GDR visited us here last month. It became obvious that they were extremely concerned to keep their bilateral links with parliamentarians such as ours, because as they become part of a united Germany they are conscious that outside links may be harder to maintain. We need to deal with the issue of how we can maintain contact with individual Lander in Germany when that process gathers momentum.
      Similarly, the visits and the contacts that we have had with Romania, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria have been followed up with the sending of observer teams for the elections. That, too, has been an important part of the learning process for us all.
      The hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned The Times report on 1 May. It made a valid criticism of the extent to which we have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of some of the countries with which we are concerned in the two-way process.
      I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that a special concern to bear in mind in all this work is the role of the Soviet Union. That is why I was glad that the Select Committee, whose work is so usefully illustrated in the reports, has been part of the parallel processes. When IPU delegations from the Soviet Union and other countries are in this country, meetings with the Select Committee have, almost invariably, been part of the programme of the work of each seminar.
      As it is only a short debate, I shall briefly touch on some of the issues that arise out of those exchanges. The need for seminars has been reinforced. Arguments have been advanced about the need for the English language, about the value of the BBC World Service and about our mature media and parliamentary democracy. Those are not items that people would wish to export—and nobody has claimed that—but it is remarkable how people can relate to that. Above all, the interest in the English language is something on which many can feed quickly. The enthusiasm and commitment of so many who have visited this House have illustrated that fact.
      The Times article on 1 May, "Where are the British?", made a valid point in expressing concern about the lack of

      715
      British industrial involvement in central and eastern Europe. Anyone visiting those countries will quickly find substantial evidence of American, Japanese, Korean, West German and other European investment projects. That is an aspect that we need to keep in mind. On the other hand, we have shown that political initiatives by both the Government and the House have been first in the field, so The Times is quite misleading in suggesting that parliamentary democracy is not exportable. I reject that. It is in the very process of comparing notes and trying to assess our approach to the problems that our work has had value on both sides.
      It is perhaps ironic that, at a time when there is a certain amount of excitement about local government finance, our visitors have applauded the superb opportunity—as they view it—to do things on the ground and to have decentralisation. How they go about that is a matter for consideration. No doubt there will be mixed views on the efficacy of the community charge as opposed to other forms of local government finance. The thrust of the exchanges has highlighted an insatiable thirst for political exchange and political dialogue and a need to have a form of parliamentary recognition. That is sometimes underestimated as people come forward in these challenging and difficult areas.
      I want to discuss one or two areas that we should think about in arranging our long-term exchanges with those countries. I have mentioned the media and the press, which are of special interest. It is also interesting that the concept of a non-political civil service arouses a great deal of interest among our visitors. It is quite difficult to know how to demonstrate that. However, it is clear that, for many visitors, the opportunity to sit in and observe the work of the Clerks to the Overseas Offices of both our Houses, or to sit with a local government officer, has been a major part of the learning process. That has been highlighted by the one-to-one constituency visits between our parliamentarians and those from other parts of the world. We can reflect only that, perhaps, we have never fully appreciated the way in which our system sometimes gives us advantages in having a particular strength and a particular intimacy. Although others may not use the same system, it is clear that our process of relating to a voter is something that immediately gets their minds working in a way that will assist and, perhaps, be part of their immediate political development.
      I shall now discuss the role of the House and of the Government in taking matters ahead. There is a problem with co-ordination. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has shown great interest in that when talking to hon. Members from all parties. That also reflects the views of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. If we move, as we hope, to bi-monthly seminars in 1991 and away from the old concept of the semi-state parliamentary visit to working visits that allow people to get down to the nitty gritty, we need to have some understanding of what is taking place in parallel with that. Within the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a committee of the Twelve-plus—that is, Sweden, Italy and ourselves—is seeking to pool all the information and the intelligence about what is happening throughout western countries in assisting in the process. Similarly, there is work in the Council of Europe
      716
      and the European Parliament. There are party-to-party links and individual activities by members in all these areas.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will feel that the Foreign Office could serve not only his thinking but that of the House by holding a conference or seminar—it may be once every six months—at which the various interested parties might meet to take stock and to share common experiences. In making our plans, all of us have experienced a little uncertainty about how far we might be tripping over each other in some of the processes. Although there has been a rush to try to achieve a certain amount of common ground before the elections, there is still major activity that needs some co-ordination and planning. In that sense, I reflect and agree with some of the comments about the need for a comprehensive strategy in considering the way ahead. I hope that we can find work that we can share. I urge the House, in considering the estimates this afternoon, to applaud the work of the Select Committee and the work that the Government are seeking to lead.
      5.17 pm
      Dr. David Owen: It is, perhaps, appropriate that on the day that the two Germanies are sharing a common currency and open frontiers we should be discussing this most central question—the political and economic development of central Europe. The dynamism behind the integration of the two Germanies has been truly staggering.
      If we think back to previous debates in the House, few of us would have anticipated the pace of events. Many tributes must be paid, but, above all, the one figure who has shown remarkable foresight and courage has been Chancellor Kohl. His political anticipation of events was important. He overrode the reservations of the Bundesbank about a common currency and, especially, one-to-one personal currency exchange.
      I wish to draw attention to one considerable concern that we are not showing anywhere near enough political foresight about—the need for a successful economic transformation to a market economy and a buttressing of the democracies of Poland, Hungary and Czechslovakia. I am fully confident, as I think that most hon. Members will be, that a united Germany will, very rapidly—perhaps in under two years—transform the economy of East Germany, and become a fully democratic member of the European Community and of NATO.
      However, if we look even now at the development of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, none of us can be certain that those three countries, which have made a democratic commitment and a commitment to the market economy, will succeed. It is of fundamental importance to the stability of Europe that those three countries succeed, within a short time, in making that transformation.
      There are many candidates for the peace dividend. There is no question but that there will be substantial reductions in defence spending. Those within the Soviet Union will be an important part of its attempt to make perestroika succeed. It is in our interests to hasten the process of conventional force reductions and to increase nuclear reductions. All the NATO countries can also look forward to reasonable reductions in what has been a heavy defence cost ever since the end of the world war. We have contributed greatly to that process.

      717
      It is understandable that people will look to an improvement in many aspects of their domestic lives as a result of the peace dividend—whether it is through spending on the health service, the relief of poll tax, or further spending on higher education or training for technical skills. Goodness knows, we need more spending on those sectors. If we are truly buttressing peace, we should be well advised to ensure true democracy in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland.
      In the middle 1970s, there was an extraordinary political thrust to buttress the new-found democracies of Spain, Portugal and Greece as they emerged from fascism. That political thrust is now necessary to ensure the success of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The European Community has been remiss in not giving those countries the certainty of membership of the European Community. I know that many in Brussels find it suspicious when we talk about enlargement of the European Community because they believe that Britain suggests it as a way to weaken the growth of unity within the Community and its further integration. I can claim a long-standing record of commitment to British membership of the European Community. I believe that, in the immediate aftermath of the crashing down of the Berlin wall and all the epoch-making changes, it was right and natural to look to the strengthening of the Twelve and to ensuring that the Federal Republic of Germany in its unified state was an integral part of the Community.
      It is also natural and right to ensure that the Atlantic link remains and that NATO finds increased unity to cope with these challenges. However, it would be a tragedy if the European Community did not also see an extremely important part of its future contribution in Europe as enlargement, at a reasonable pace, to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and also Austria. That prospect, around the year 2000, may be opening up. For all the advantages and the welcome attempts of initiatives such as the know-how funds and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, none will be of such lasting value and permanence as the certainty of European Community membership.
      I know that people will raise the spectre of the Community expanding to include Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Turkey and the rest. We have to be blunt. Some of those countries do not have the same democratic imperatives. Sweden is fully democratic and we can grapple with the problem of Sweden as we deal with the need for European economic space in the EFTA-EC negotiations. Switzerland can look after itself. Turkey is, quite frankly, not a European country and it is time that we said so and were open about it. It is an associate member, but it must not look to full membership of the Community.
      Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary need the buttressing of European Community membership. Those who believe in an eventual common currency, the prospect of monetary union, the need for greater decision making as a result of majority voting in the European Community, strengthening of the European Parliament's powers and an increased role of the Council of Ministers should also argue the case for enlargement. It should come not just from this country but from France, the Benelux countries and Germany.
      Germany has made it clear that it will take the financial burden of the integration of the two Germanies. It will pay the full price of economic and democratic development in
      718
      East Germany, with its environmental pollution problems, and will pay a heavy price to the Soviet Union to ensure that the Soviet forces coming out of East Germany are rehoused in reasonable barracks and, in the short term, that there is continued payment from Germany to those troops in their country. I hope that that withdrawal programme will be conducted with the utmost urgency and I am pleased that the Federal Republic has shown its sensitivity in realising that Russian generals have to be able to say to their forces coming out of eastern Europe that they will go into proper barracks and remain in reasonable conditions.
      The country that ought to be asked to pay a heavy price for the development of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia is Austria. That is why it is important to tell Austria that it will come into the European Community after 1993 but that, in that transition, it will be expected to help in the market orientation of those countries, particularly Hungary.
      It is reasonable for countries such as France and Britain to jump over East Germany and concentrate their investment and political initiatives on Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. East Germany has help from its fellow countrymen. We should be prepared to see that as, effectively, a responsibility for West Germany and we should go out to the other countries as fast and as quickly as we can. We ought not to be too afraid of the economic doubters. I remember how many people said to us in 1977 that Spain would not adapt and would be a constant drag on the European Community. Given reasonable help, those three countries will succeed as Spain has.
      The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who contributed positively to the debate, pointed out that, when looking at debt, we should differentiate between that which has been incurred by communist Governments and that incurred since transition. It is unreasonable not to treat the mountain of debt that they inherited from the past on a different basis. Debt write-off, project aid and technological assistance have to be geared tightly towards movement to a market economy.
      I agree with much that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said. However, there is a danger in her approach, which almost equated the Soviet Union arid those other countries. It is that the Soviet Union is so vast and that it has not yet made a full commitment to democracy or the market economy. It is not an echo from the cold war to say that the Soviet Union must be further back in the queue for market and democratic assistance. We cannot give to it and those other countries at the same time.
      I would make an exception of the extremely enlightened suggestion of the Dutch Prime Minister Lubbers at the Dublin summit for an Energy Community, which has not received much publicity. The Soviet Union is rich in hydrocarbons—oil, coal, and particularly gas. If Europe really wants to make a rapid movement against environmental degradation and carbon dioxide emissions, nothing would be better than to move into natural gas. A certain supply of natural gas from the Soviet Union throughout Europe would be an immensely stabilising and attractive investment. It would also be a way of ensuring hard currency for the Soviet Union.
      Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point? At the recent summit, politicians instructed the

      719
      European Commission to go away and find out how the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development could provide investment funds to the Soviet Union and how the IMF and GATT could help out. Is the right hon. Gentleman for or against that proposal?
      Dr. Owen: I am not against it, but I draw some comfort from the fact that lending from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development will be spread among the countries of central and eastern Europe committed to and applying principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics. It is the first time that we have ever so overtly tied aid and bank reconstruction programmes to pluralism, democracy and market economy. I should not want to dilute that at the moment with the Soviet Union. We should hold open the prospect of aid to the Soviet Union, but, to be quite blunt, I do not believe that Mr. Gorbachev has yet accepted anything more than a managed democracy and a managed economy. I see no sign that Mr.Gorbachev has accepted the disciplines of a full democracy or market economy. We would be putting bad money after worse if we poured it into the Soviet Union at the moment. We learnt that lesson with the money that we put into Poland too soon in the early 1980s and we would not do well to repeat the same mistakes.
      The proposed energy project is a serious commitment of mutual benefit. There is also a danger that the Soviet Union may move too rapidly into charging its former satellite countries full economic prices for their energy. There are many signs that the Soviet Union wishes to do that and to demand hard currency. If that happens too quickly, those countries will have an added burden for which we shall have to compensate. I hope that the Government will carefully consider the Lubbers proposal and ensure that at the next European Council it is given every bit as much consideration as the proposals by France and Germany for extensive Soviet aid. Such a proposal would give more value to the wider Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. It has strategic and political significance and would provide the economic underpinning that Europe needs.
      Finally, it is not easy to overestimate the value of the investment of the British Council and the BBC World Service. I hope that the remarks of the Select Committee in that regard will be taken seriously into account. I understand that the British Council will have to find the money from its own resources in the next few months and that the know-how fund is being made available for only a short time. It is no good looking at the BBC only in terms of radio. The new medium of communication is television. It is absurd that Cable and Network News and American culture is blasting into every country in the world with considerable facility and skill. The BBC ought to be involved in television news worldwide. It should also carry advertising. The sooner the BBC establishes a worldwide challenge to CNN, particularly in Europe, the better. It is no good thinking that we will get the same value that we have enjoyed over many decades from the BBC World Service simply by relying on radio. We have to move into television very fast indeed. Given the atmosphere of our relationship with eastern Europe, it would be a very good place to start.
      5.34 pm
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Such debates are always fascinating. Yesterday there was one kind of Germany and today, it is said, there is another. This time last year we would never have dreamed of the changes that have taken place. It is natural for politicians, particularly leading politicians, to talk about splendid visions, the ideals of what we should be doing and the money that we should be giving—usually other people's.
      I agree with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about third world aid. It is important that the money that we are dishing out in such huge bucketfuls should not be at the expense of the third world. However, I bring one point of realism to the hon. Lady. It is no good talking about percentages. Socialists are always keen to talk about percentages. Perhaps the Government do not give the right percentage. The socialists might well have given the right percentage, but they gave the wrong sums of money. We are giving greater sums of money and greater real help. It is no good talking about the starving. If our economy were a quarter as good as it was when the socialists were in government, the percentages would look better but money and not percentages fills stomachs.
      The Opposition talk glibly about debt forgiveness, but who is to pay for it? We are talking not about a few tens of billions of pounds or dollars but about hundreds of billions. One thing is certain: an individual country can renege on a debt just once, but then it becomes a wasteland of the financial dead because no one in his right mind will ever lend it money again. It becomes a banana republic and people have to give it money because they know that they will never get it back.
      Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No, other people wish to take part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way!") I cannot refuse that challenge.
      Ms. Abbott: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that debt reduction is a complex business, but does he accept that the sums of money that were sent to Poland and South America have already been spent? Everyone knows that the prospect of many of those countries ever repaying their debt is extremely doubtful. It is no help to continue pretending that the money can be clawed back. Debt reduction is complex and difficult, and we have to take it seriously.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I agree with the hon. Lady that each country and each debt is an individual problem. Hungary, however, is adopting the right attitude, having said that it does not want to rephase its debt because it believes that it can earn its way out of the crisis. It may well be that because Poland has so much moribund industry, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, we have learnt from what we did in the 1980s in Poland, throwing money into things that should have been obliterated.
      The Opposition say that they wish to form a Government at some time in the next 20 years, but if they think that they can give away other people's money and expect the world to become a more stable and healthy place, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. The same

      721
      applies to Mr. Gorbachev. At the moment, Gorbachev mania is running around the world in the same way as Mandela mania. So far as I am concerned, what Chancellor Kohl is trying to do involves some of our money as well. Despite what the right hon. Member for Devonport said, it is not all West German money; £2.3 billion of EEC funds is going to the east and £8 billion of the £20 billion that the right hon. Gentleman spoke about so glibly will come from EEC funds. That is our money, too, and it is to be sent on propping up a man who, as they say in the midlands, "can speak good, can't he". He can certainly speak good, but what has he promised? It is clear that he wants not to change communism but to run it better. We in the western world, even the socialists, know that that socialism is dead. Socialist members of the Select Committee realised that when they returned from eastern Europe. Communism does not work for the good of people.
      Chancellor Kohl wants to build new Germany and to throw $20 billion at another wasted enterprise. Russia must learn, as East Germany is learning, that to achieve real change will involve some real pain. Two million people in East Germany are about to experience two years of misery, possibly followed by 20 golden years.
      We have all seen the pain of communism. It is not that the people are bad or unwilling to work, but the communist regimes that have borne down on them for generations cannot work. We must teach the Russian people that realism plays no part in their lives.
      I should like to say something about Germany, but not in a carping sense. There have been three reichs, the last of which was a war reich. I do not believe that the fourth reich will make anything other than a peaceful transition to another Germany, because it is a new Germany. It is no good people always harping back to the war. Anyone who has met Germans knows that they are more tired of wars than us. Anyone who has visited Dresden, which has been rebuilt but where hundreds of thousands of innocent Germans died, knows that the Germans do not want wars.
      I am not saying that the fourth reich will be a war-like Germany, but anyone who believes that the new Germany will not be a desperate battleground for this country and other countries is living in a fool's paradise. East and West Germany together will stand astride the world with Japan and America. There will be desperately difficult and challenging times ahead for our trade and industry. Anyone who thinks that East Germany's growth will provide us with huge oppportunities does not understand the German mentality. The Germans rightly want to build Germany into a huge, powerful unit. They say, "Let us not talk about Germans, British or French, let us talk about Europeans". But when the Bundesbank talks about Europeans, what does it mean? Who is to run the world banking system? Surprise, surprise, it is the Bundesbank.
      Our manufacturing industry will have to change and receive more Government support than it has had in the past. The Foreign Office must change its attitude to the ambassadors it supports. Our ambassadors—happily, we saw at least one good one while we were away—must place more emphasis on trade expertise. If the Common Market means anything, it means that each country should not waste its money on having its own foreign affairs channel. We want more emphasis on trade and industry so that Britain can at least play its part in competing in Europe, with West Germany, East Germany and a united Germany. Challenges and opportunities mean dangers. If
      722
      Britain is to survive, it will do so not on changing the guard at Buckingham palace and on Sainsburys, but on manufacturing and trading our way out of the problems that we face.
      5.45 pm
      Ms. Diane Abbott: Every hon. Member was thrilled to see the cruel and tyrannical regimes toppled throughout eastern Europe; nothing like it had been seen since 1848, the year of revolution.
      All hon. Members support the political liberation of eastern Europe, but the House should consider what the immediate economic and social consequences will be. It should also consider the broader picture and the consequences for the rest of the world, particularly the third world, of events in eastern Europe.
      I spent last week in eastern Europe with other members of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. We visited Frankfurt, Berlin and Budapest and met politicians, business men and financiers, including Mr. Pöhl of the Bundesbank, who will sit astride the Europe of the future, like a direct descendant of the holy Roman emperors.
      It is hard to escape the conclusion that in the immediate future the big gainer from current events will be West German capital. The short-term consequences for the living standards of ordinary people in eastern Europe look a little bleak and the consequences for the third world could be disastrous.
      There is no doubt that West German banks and financial institutions are excited by events in eastern Europe, particularly German economic and monetary union. The word the bankers used time and again was how "emotional" they felt about events—an unusual word for bankers. Huge sums are poised to pour into eastern Europe, particularly East Germany, through Governments, private investment, the World bank, the IMF and institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
      In rebuilding East Germany, West Germany has the edge if not the monopoly. West German business and finance share a common language and culture with East Germany and have well-established links. The House should bear in mind that the interests of West German capital in East Germany are not necessarily focused on the manufacturing sector and job creation. The keenest interest seems to be in the service and retail sector. Deutsche Bank is poised to take over the East German Kreditbank; Lufthansa is poised to take over the East German Interflug; and Allianz, the West German insurance company, will take over the entire East German insurance industry.
      When the ownership problems in East Germany are finally resolved, there will be a bonanza for property developers, because some land in East Germany is seriously undervalued. If, as seems almost certain, Berlin becomes the capital of a unified Germany, there is prime real estate in Berlin ripe for exploitation by Germanic Donald Trumps. Some of the East Germans we spoke to regard the precipitate economic monetary union of West and East Germany as, sadly, a once-and-for-all opportunity for West German business interests to buy

      723
      East German assets at knock-down prices. Some East Germans described German economic and monetary union as the sale of the century for West German banks.
      There will not be, as Conservative Members have said, a huge manufacturing opportunity for British manufacturing industry. At present, Britain's role seems to be to provide an army of accountants or management consultants—a carpetbagger army of consultants.
      The paradox is that if we take into account the western blockade which deprived the East Germans of access to technical information, the East German economy was relatively successful. But East Germany was saturated with West German television and became obsessed with access to hard currency and consumer goods. Hon. Members will have seen television pictures of people fighting to get their deutschmarks yesterday. Members of the Select Committee saw in Berlin the queues to open banks accounts, but some East Germans are having second thoughts because of the danger of asset stripping, and East German economists know that GEMU has moved too fast. It is driven by politics rather than economics and runs the danger of creating a money society.
      Conservative Members said that there was a possibility of unemployment in East Germany because of GEMU. The politicans, bankers and financiers to whom we spoke said that there would certainly be mass unemployment—perhaps as many as 4 million people—and that as many as one third of the companies were expected to go bankrupt. There are already cuts in support for welfare services such as libraries and nurses, and in support for East German sport. Women with children are being sacked because they are not seen as productive. The market economy will work in East Germany because West Germany has the wealth—the long pockets—to make it work. Even in East Germany, the people will pay a grave economic and social price in the short term. It is difficult to see how the rest of eastern Europe can sustain stable, liberal democracies, given the bankruptcies, unemployment, falling real incomes and the doubling and trebling of prices which are certain to be the immediate result of the introduction of market economies.
      By all means let us be euphoric about the introduction of political democracy into eastern Europe, but the social and economic road down which eastern European countries have still to go is difficult. For most of the ordinary peoples of eastern Europe, the immediate result of the introduction of capitalism will be a drop in their real living standards, extraordinary instability and uncertainty.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I rise on a genuine point of information because I do not know the answer to my question. Can the hon. Lady enlighten me? Is the standard of, say, child care provision enjoyed in East Germany higher than that available in West Germany or is it lower? Will the East Germans be able, in time, to look forward to an improvement when the two sides of the country merge?
      Ms. Abbott: It is not so much that the standard is higher—provision is much more heavily subsidised in East Germany than in West Germany. Interestingly, women in East Germany have free access to abortion but the rights of the foetus are protected in the West German constitution. Not all forms of social provision and all
      724
      social rights are necessarily better in West Germany than in East Germany. The quality of accommodation in East Germany may not be higher than in West Germany, but the subsidies are much higher. The women to whom I spoke were frightened as the creches were closing because Government subsidy was no longer available.
      It was clear from my visit to eastern Europe that racism was surfacing again, particularly in Germany. The neo-Nazis are resurfacing and there have been attacks on black people and immigrant workers in the streets. There have been demonstrations outside migrant workers' hostels. Jewish cemeteries have been dug up and a memorial to Bertolt Brecht was defaced because it was said that he was Jewish. One frightening aspect of unification which has not been given particular emphasis in this country is the surfacing of the dark side of German nationalism, which involves anti-semitism and antagonism towards migrant workers. Thoughtful East Berliners pointed out that there are 70,000 Turks in West Berlin. They are not guest workers but a settled community. There will be unemployment in East Berlin as an immediate result of German economic and monetary union. What will the East Berliners say about 70,000 Turks holding jobs that they will regard as German jobs? In the short term at least, this must increase racial pressures.
      The capital inflows into eastern Europe will be at the expense of the third world, whether they come from commercial or from governmental sources, no matter what Governments may say to the contrary. Mr. Barber Conable, president of the World bank, is on record as saying that private sector investment in eastern Europe will be at the expense of the third world. Despite all the euphoria about the new Europe and Fortress Europe, at a time when living standards are dropping all over the third world—perhaps because of poor government and certainly because of greater third world debt—it would be unfortunate if the House blithely looked to events in Europe and did not consider the consequences for the third world and Commonwealth countries.
      Debt reduction has been discussed. Bankers in East Germany are already talking blithely about a 70 per cent. debt reduction for Poland. That is all very well, but if there is to be debt reduction for any middle income country, whether it be Poland, Mexico or Jamaica, the reduction should be equitable. West German bankers told us that there must be debt reduction for Poland because the Poles are very poor. There are people in Africa and central America who are even poorer than the Poles. It would be wrong for the long-term stability of the world if we looked at the issue of debt reduction for Poland in a narrow, Euro-centric way and did not take the issue in its totality.
      Despite claims to the contrary, interest rates in Germany must rise once the December elections are out of the way. It seemed clear to me from sources close to the Bundesbank that, to attract the capital inflow necessary to rebuild East Germany and to check inflation, West German interest rates must rise. That will make it even harder for the third world to repay its debt—a debt that is crippling economies around the globe.
      In Europe's euphoria about the political changes in Europe, the third world is in danger of dropping off the end of the world's agenda. In what will be traumatic economic times, the House and this country should think about the kind of economic support that we can give the countries of eastern Europe. The exact kind of economic

      725
      support is a difficult matter, but it needs to support progressive economic and political changes and not just prop up decaying regimes.
      Let us be in no doubt—the market has no magic wand to wave. In the short term, the consequences of the introduction into eastern Europe of a free market will be a measure of political and social crisis that will vary from country to country. Like many hon. Members and people outside the House, I should be seriously aggrieved if the House were to jettison its long-standing connections with the third world and the Commonwealth in the light of current events in eastern Europe. We must help eastern Europe, but we must be mindful of our responsibilities as citizens of the world and of the interests of the poorest communities in the world.
      5.57 pm
      Mr. Nigel Forman: In the interests of time, I shall not take up the points made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), much as I would have been tempted to do so in other circumstances.
      I welcome this debate on assistance to eastern Europe. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on his speech. I speak not only as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee but also as chairman of the Great Britain-East Europe Centre. Hon. Members may not know that the centre was established in 1967 to promote a closer understanding between the British people and the peoples of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania by fostering cultural, economic, educational and social contacts with them. In 1988, the centre extended it activities to include Poland and the German Democratic Republic. It has organised round tables, symposiums and seminars for exchanges of view between people with similar professional interests, whether in the law, medicine, conservation, urbanisation, economics or the environment. It has invited a wide range of individuals from its six partner countries for two-week visits to the United Kingdom, with the people chosen by the centre and not designated by the previous communist Governments. The centre has sponsored young people coming to the United Kingdom for the first time to attend courses and summer schools.
      Since 1989, that annus mirabilis for the peoples of eastern Europe, the centre has stepped up the pace of its activities by organising, in co-operation with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and with the welcome support of Mr. Speaker, a series of seminars on practical aspects of democratic politics and political organisation. More than 80 people from five countries were brought here for the seminars—many of them involved for the first time in a genuinely pluralistic political process. It was a cause of real satisfaction to me and to many of my hon. Friends that some of them became Members of Parliament or even Ministers on their return to their home countries. It was good to know that, with the indispensable financial support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it was possible to make a real contribution to the building of new democracies in eastern Europe. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who drew a parallel with the countries of the Iberian peninsula and referred to the role that the bolstering of economic contacts—and, ultimately, after some years,
      726
      membership of the Community—could make to the progress and reinforcement of democracy in eastern and central Europe.
      Perhaps the mechanism of which we in Britain can be the most proud is the know-how fund, set up since the momentous events of last year. The fund, which was unjustifiably criticised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), has been a pioneering model of its kind and is now being replicated by some of our European partners. I hope that its coverage will soon be extended to Bulgaria and Romania—a point touched on indirectly by the Prime Minister in her statement on 1 May following the special European Council in Dublin, when she said that the group of 24 intended to extend their assistance to Bulgaria and Romania. In that context, it would be logical for the know-how fund to cover those two countries as well.
      Once again, I should declare an interest as I am a member of the advisory board of the know-how fund and have been able to build up some experience in that way. My experience and involvement have taught me several things. First, a shortage of funds has not been a problem for the countries that we seek to help, as we understand that more money will be made available as new, worthwhile projects are identified.
      Secondly, the aid and assistance that Britain has been able to channel to those countries is additional to the resources already allocated to our overseas aid budget. That is absolutely clear, and it is worth putting it on record; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister may wish to endorse that point in his winding-up speech.
      Thirdly, the fund is engaged in nothing less than helping to provide the people concerned with the skills needed to run a market economy and a democratic pluralist society. For example, the fund has been able to help the Poles by providing them with basic skills in banking, accountancy auditing and commercial law—all of them vital in effecting the transition to a market economy. Equally, we shall be helping the Czechoslovaks with their embryonic policy of privatization—on which, as I know from a recent visit, they are very keen—and with the establishment of small businesses, which will be absolutely vital to their chances of avoiding mass unemployment.
      I recently returned from a visit with a delegation to Czechoslovakia, where I was able to see at first hand the scale of the tasks to be tackled. Sober people estimate that the whole economy of Czechoslovakia is probably 15 to 20 per cent. over-employed. Were the Czechoslovaks able one day to achieve western levels of productivity, the existing level of industrial output could probably be achieved with half the present work force. That is the scale of the problems that confront Czechoslovakia. In other words, Czechoslovakia and all its partners in the now moribund Comecon need to engage in the most extensive economic restructuring. There is much that we in Britain—especially in the private sector—can do to help to bring that about.
      So far—with the notable exception of the German Democratic Republic, which is really a special case—British business men seem to have been a little slow to explore the potential for joint ventures, foreign equity participation and all the other mechanisms of economic co-operation. It would be good for this country and for countries such as Czechoslovakia if more firms followed

      727
      the rather rare example of Barkotex, which has already formed a joint venture in textiles, and Bovis, which has launched two joint ventures in construction.
      Certainly British industry and commerce have a lot of ground to make up before they can begin to match the efforts of big firms in other countries such as Bata in Canada, Volkswagen in Germany and Fiat in Italy, all of which are much further advanced than our firms in forging the necessary economic partnerships.
      In general, I think that it is fair to say that so far the record of our public sector in providing practical training and assistance to the countries of eastern Europe has been superior to the performance of our private sector in direct investment and joint ventures. For the good of Britain and for the good of the recipient countries, we must hope that such an imbalance will be rectified as soon as possible. Both public and private sectors have a useful part to play in helping to transform the eastern European economies and to strengthen what Ralf Dahrendorf has rightly called civil society in those countries.
      I commend Ministers for the timely and effective lead that they have given, especially via the know-how fund, and I urge them to use all their influence within the Community and within the OECD framework of 24 to bring about further practical progress.
      In my view—and I agree once again with the right hon. Member for Devonport—it is a vital British and Western interest that the economic and political revolutions in central and eastern Europe should not fail. The fact that they were successful in the first flush of enthusiasm does not necessarily mean that the countries will find it so easy later on. We should do all that we can to assist them in practical and cost-effective ways, preferably concentrating our help on those things that we do best in this country. It is all to easy to make snide remarks about help with the police, local government and the civil service. The fact remains that those are our relative strengths and it is right that we should give them priority in our efforts to help the countries of eastern Europe.
      At the same time, however, we should use our influence with the new democratic Governments of those countries to encourage them on the difficult but necessary path to price reform, currency convertibility and much more extensive private ownership, without which their bold and magnificent experiments may not succeed.
      6.6 pm
      Sir Russell Johnston: Like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), I shall be brief because time is pressing and many hon. Members wish to speak.
      I am still euphoric about the events in eastern Europe, and that will, I suppose, affect what I think and say. The glorious achievement of a long-deferred hope remains very exciting, but it lays on us a great responsibility. That responsibility may be difficult to fulfil, but we have a duty to take it on and not to be mean or exploitative about it.
      Let me deal first with the Soviet Union—the big one. I do not agree with the position adopted by the Prime Minister in Dublin and stated today by the right hon. Members for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). We must look seriously at ways of
      728
      giving Gorbachev economic support and help. I said that first in the Western European Union Assembly in December last year, so it is not a new view.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Why?
      Sir Russell Johnston: Because—I shall quote myself, which is always useful—as I said then:
      "The price of helping Russia to change must be balanced against the cost of defending ourselves against her … It is a time when I believe that boldness, not timidity"
      should guide us. It is all very well the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) uttering remarks from a sedentary position, but it is extraordinary to suggest that Chancellor Kohl is anxious to pour money down a black hole. I do not believe that that is the German approach to such matters. Of course there must be prudence and order and care must be taken and I do not believe that the proposals coming from the Germans involve anything other than that—nor am I afraid of the link that the Germans are making with NATO and troops. We must face up to our responsibility to assist the changes in the Soviet Union.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that GNP in Russia is dropping by 5 per cent. a year? How can giving the Russians £20 billion bolster anything unless there is real change?
      Sir Russell Johnston: I am not saying that we should give them £20 billion. I am saying that we should look at constructive ways of assisting their economy.
      I was not clear about what the right hon. Member for Devonport said about some sort of accelerated membership of the European Community for Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia; I do not know how that would work. I take the view that the existing Community must sort itself out and give those countries assistance. We must offer them associate status as and when and look to the point at which they can join, but that cannot all be done at once.
      Like the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Carshalton and Wallington, I am also a member of the know-how fund advisory board, which has been confined so far to Poland and Hungary, but will probably cover Czechoslovakia. I hope that the Minister of State will refer to East Germany when he replies because we would like to know what the position is with regard to East Germany.
      The British Council and our embassies are a little overwhelmed at the moment. They need more people. There is a genuine area of cross-party co-operation in that regard and perhaps hon. Members can help in an organised way. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred to overlap, and I am still worried about that. It has been suggested that the Council of Europe has a role to play, and clearly the European Community also has a part to play. However, we must consider what is happening. In general, I believe that the progress has been constructive.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has just returned from a Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee visit to the east. He has stressed that the Hungarians do not want their debt cancelled because they believe that that is unnecessary. That is contrary to the point made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.

      729
      The context of German reunion must involve faster and more confident European integration. Bulgaria has held its election and has produced the successor Communist party and the Bulgarian socialist party is now in office. That party won what most observers considered to be a reasonably conducted election. One of my party members, Miss Sarah Ludford, witnessed the elections and said:
      "Forty-five years of Communist totalitarian Government obviously leave a legacy which cannot be removed in a few months … this undoubtedly produced a climate in which a lot of people felt pressurised to vote"—
      for the successor Communist party—
      "we were told of none-too-veiled threats about loss of jobs and pensions … although the vote itself was secret … that secrecy may not have given people enough confidence to vote for the opposition."
      That is also true of Romania. I was in Romania during the election and I saw almost the same thing. There were then also the awful events when the miners rampaged through Bucharest and the west said, "Hold off. It looks like Iliescu is simply a repetition of Ceausescu." I do not believe that that is true.
      In Innsbruck the day before yesterday I was fortunate enough to spend half an hour with the new deputy Prime Minister of Romania, Dr. Severin. I wrote to the Minister of State about that meeting, but he will not have received the letter yet. The Romanians are trying hard to give the opposition a place. The leader of the Romanian Liberal party, Mr. Campeano, is now the deputy president of the Senate, and the Peasants party is also getting opportunities. In the west we must decide whether the Romanians are behaving openly and, if they are, we must help them.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the collapse of a civil society. Nowhere did that happen to a greater degree than in Ceausescu's Romania. The civilised society had almost disappeared there. However, it is surprising how quickly it can be brought back.
      It is important to be prudent. However, we must also be positive and generous. We must not exploit or asset strip. Instead we should try our best to show the acceptable face of democracy and capitalism.
      6.13 pm
      Mr. David Tredinnick: Recently I had the honour to host the first ever conference for Members of Parliament from both east and west Europe, that is, democratically elected Members of Parliament from east Europe and candidates from countries such as Czechoslovakia which had not yet held their elections. The conference was held at Lancaster house and involved nearly 30 Members of Parliament and 80 delegates. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his support and for making know-how fund money available to the British Atlantic group of young politicians, of which I am chairman and which organised the conference. His help was invaluable.
      In my brief speech tonight, I want to share with the House some of the impressions that I gained from the delegates from all the east European countries, including the Soviet Union. I want also to refer to the special position of the Soviet Union and consider what we can do to help. Then I will consider the changes in the European Community which the reforms in eastern Europe are bringing about and the way that those changes are being addressed.
      730
      The British Atlantic group of young politicians is a NATO-supporting organisation. Last year it decided that, because there were glimmers of hope and democratic developments in east Europe, the group should try to develop contacts with those countries. As chairman of that group, I can say with some pride that we perhaps anticipated events and our conference at Lancaster house was set up well before November last year.
      The first impression that I gained from the conference was that the know-how fund has been tremendously welcomed by all the countries that are favoured by it. It is a great credit to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that they have come up with the package. The delegates from Czechoslovakia and Poland very much hope that more investment will follow the British know-how.
      I spent election day in Czechoslovakia in the Civic. Forum headquarters. In that country, it is not a matter of pushing at an open door; it is a matter of walking right through the door frame. Those people desperately want British investment because they are frightened to a certain extent of German investment. In the Sudentenland they are particularly worried that too much German influence will come across the border and will damage their independence.
      I was in Poland last year and I was aware that the Polish people are worried that the disproportionate amount of West German investment in Poland, and particularly in Silesia, is affecting their independence. That view was confirmed at the conference. There is great scope for British investment in those countries.
      Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the important point about private investment is that it is likely to change the political and economic structure of the recipient country because only by changing will it attract that investment? On the other hand, public investment is more likely to shore up the existing political circumstances and prevent change.
      Mr. Tredinnick: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but we must differentiate between different types of aid.
      The delegates at the conference also wanted the English language to be the paramount international language in eastern Europe. Anything that we can do to develop and improve the English language in that area will be most welcome. That was particularly evident when I spoke to Czechoslovak delegates. Delegates were also very concerned about the environment. Britain has a great role to play in that respect.
      If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State were to consider the problem with visas, he could ease the relations between the countries. We visited the embassy in Prague on a Sunday and saw the embassy staff working overtime to process visas for Czechoslovak citizens wishing to come to Britain. We must review our policy towards eastern Europe. The east Germans and the west Germans have dispensed with all visa controls. We must move ahead and consider doing the same.
      It has been said this afternoon that there is a strong argument for not throwing money down the well, putting it down the plug hole or throwing it at ancien régimes. However, the House must differentiate between different types of assistance. An article in The Economist this week

      731
      also suggested that we should not repeat mistakes that were made in the past by providing aid to countries which just wasted it.
      There is a case for extending the know-how fund, and I shall explain how it should usefully be done. During the conference at Lancaster house, I took great care to spend time with the Russian delegation, because it was the largest from eastern Europe—there were six recently elected Members of Parliament and a member of the Praesidium. Afterwards, I entertained the delegation privately in the evening. I sat next to the Russian ambassador at lunch at the Russian embassy but two weeks ago. It is my conviction that the Russians are anxious to move closer to Britain, and they want to do so for several reasons. First, they still feel a bond between our nations. It pre-dates the 40-year cold war—it goes back to the fact that we were allies in the last war. Secondly, they believe that our nation can deliver reform. Thirdly, they recognise the success of our privatisation ideology.
      It is my profound belief that we would be mistaken if we did not extend the know-how fund to the Soviet Union in a specific way. I am not suggesting that all the reforms in the Soviet Union that should take place have taken place, but, when a reformist leadership is under great pressure, the very least that we can do is to offer something so that the Soviet leader can say to the people, "We really have support; it is tangible." We could give help with desperately needed English lessons—that help would not go into the war machine—and we could help with training in western accountancy methods.
      I now refer to the pace of change within the EEC and what should be done about it. In his moving speech, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) addressed the way in which the EEC is looking at eastern Europe. I agree with him 100 per cent., but I go a little further. Not only should Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary be within the EEC, but it behoves the EEC to move much faster to achieve that end. We have just seen the west Germans mobilise a tremendous effort to effect change in their country. In Poland, the Catholic Church built churches as soon as restrictions were lifted. There have been vast changes in the Soviet Union also. The EEC must move faster. It is no good saying that we must wait three or four years before other applications are processed. We must consider setting up some structures much sooner than that.
      I am grateful to hon. Members for listening to my speech.
      6.22 pm
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am glad that there have been at least one or two mentions of the problems facing Romania. I was a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation which visited Bucharest, Timisoara and Lipova, and many villages in that country. I was able to confirm what our local government officials had said of Romania. There was also a 75-man delegation from the United States. As far as we could tell, in the circumstances, the election was carried out in a perfectly just way. On 20 May, the people of Romania went to the polls in a spirit of freedom. They argued among themselves about the respective merits of the parties. I was accompanied also by the hon. Member
      732
      for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), and we were of the opinion that, even if there were procedural problems, there was nothing sinister on election day.
      I recognise, of course, that there were certain events in Bucharest when miners—party vigilantes—were brought in, and all hon. Members will deplore that. Someone must tell President Iliescu that democracy does not depend entirely on what happens on election day—there must be a spirit of tolerance. Perhaps some tolerance will be imbued by inviting Romanian Members of Parliament to this country to show them that, although we may slander one another across the Chamber, we can have civilised political debate. There must be a price to pay for the lack of tolerance in Romania.
      It would be wrong to exclude Romania from the know-how fund or from any other economic and social assistance that we can give. Anyone who has seen the children's hospital in Timisoara knows of the urgent human needs of the children and the conditions there. The floors of the kitchen are swilling with germ-ridden water. There is an urgent need for assistance.
      The Government must act alongside Romanian politicians. We know that 20 May was a great day of hope. We recognised that it was the beginning of Romanian democracy. Romanians have never known democracy, no matter what regime was in power.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Wareing: I shall not give way as there is insufficient time.
      I remind the Government that, when they consider human rights as a condition of assistance, they must bear in mind that we do not withhold assistance from Turkey. In the estimates, we find that, even after the events in Tiananmen square, the Yue Yang power station in China will consume £3·5 million this year and £47·9 million in future years. I ask the Government to bear that point fully in mind. Country house seminars are one thing, but they are not all that is available from Britain. We need drive on the part of British business to invest in eastern Europe.
      I was chairman of the economic development committee on Merseyside county council. I hope that the Government will not advise the Romanian Government on how to dissolve Bucharest city council as they dissolved the Greater London council. That would not be a lesson in democracy.
      Some of our small business men went to the Hanover trade fair. We must use the facilities in Leipzig, Zagreb and other parts of eastern Europe. British business is led by laggards—people more interested in asset stripping than in real investment. That is true in this country and wherever British business features in other parts of the world. We want real drive for real investment, which will not only be to the economic advantage of the United Kingdom but will help to restore the lives of many people in eastern Europe. I ask the Government to act alongside Romanian Ministers and talk to them. Of course there will be conditions, but we should not dissolve all aid.
      6.28 pm
      Mr. Donald Anderson: This debate has been based in part on the valuable report produced by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his Select Committee. The debate has been wide-ranging,

      733
      consensual, constructive and informed, as was demonstrated by the speeches by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), with his experiences in Czechoslovakia, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who pleaded that Romania be not left out of consideration.
      As the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) has said, the Inter-Parliamentary Union has played a large part in building bridges and in providing facilities for hon. Members to see at first hand the dramatic events taking place in eastern and central Europe. We all welcome those changes, although the dramatic nature of developments has revealed some of the darker aspects of the past on the eastern side of our continent. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) spoke about that.
      Fears have been expressed about the danger that aid to the third world will be sidelined to eastern and central Europe. One sees that trend in the deployment of foreign service personnel, a matter which was mentioned in the Select Committee report. I commend to the Minister the idea of uncoupling aid to eastern and central Europe from the overseas development vote. Perhaps he would consider a separate unit based on the British Council precedent. That would make quite separate the very different areas of the third world and eastern and central Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, the third world finds it increasingly difficult to attract private capital. Eastern and central Europe have human and physical infrastructures which make them highly attractive to private capital, some of which is employed in an abrasive and voracious manner.
      We must decide how best to respond to the many needs of the eastern part of our continent. There is general recognition that political changes in the past six months must be underpinned by economic changes. That means providing the management and accountancy training which are part of the know-how funds on which the debate has concentrated. The genesis of those funds was in June last year, when the Prime Minister met General Jaruzelski and promised to provide Poland with training and advice on political pluralism and the market economy. Political changes in the rest of the region have extended those concepts.
      We broadly welcome what has been done within the ambit of the know-how funds, although we are understandably wary about the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for privatisation, which at times conjures up visions of the Adam Smith Institute careering around eastern Europe organising seminars on the image of Thatcherism or seminars at which Lord Young lectures east Europeans on honesty and transparency in privatisation. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport, bless him, could talk about competence in privatisation and how to bring the continental railway system up to the standard of British Rail.
      The know-how funds are but one part of an overall package of assistance which includes the Development Bank and the Lubbers proposal from the energy committee at the European summit which was pressed by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). It also includes trade—are we prepared to open our markets to products from eastern and central Europe? It includes debt reduction and the range of activities which the hon. Member for Arundel and other hon. Members have set out on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
      734
      We acknowledge the way the Government have worked in concert with the advisory body. The Minister said that the Government had learnt from their mistakes in the early operation of the know-how funds. It would be interesting to hear about those mistakes, because the projects which have come forward since that admission by the Minister seem strikingly similar to those which came forward in the first part of the operation.
      There are reservations about the implementation of the funds. One concerns the degree of co-ordination and who directs it. Will it be done by the group of 24 or by the European Community? Such co-ordination is necessary if we are to avoid stumbling over one another in the desire to help eastern and central Europe. Questions have been asked about amounts of money. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that about £2 million of the total pledged at the end of May has been disbursed. In the context of the debt and the need, that is small beer.
      Some hon. Members have asked about the narrow profile of democracy and multi-party politics that the Government have adopted—a point in relation to Professor Dahrendorf and his social society. There is a need for intermediate bodies because democracy involves diversity and not just bankers and accountants flocking to eastern Europe. Will the Minister say at what point he thinks that East Germany, after yesterday's economic and commercial union with greater Germany, will no longer be able to benefit from the know-how funds? Perhaps he will also talk about the relationship of the funds, if any, to the Soviet Union's enormous needs. That has been mentioned by several hon. Members.
      As funds are limited, have the Government considered the know-how funds as pump primers? Companies which will benefit could surely make a contribution to enable Government funds to go that much further. How much liaison is there with business? A major British company to which I spoke says it thinks that the Government have been insufficiently commercial. Perhaps in terms of distribution Britain has had the short end of the stick in that we have been assigned financial expertise, the benefit of the City, while other countries have been assigned areas in which commerce is more evident. I hope that the Minister will confirm that we have not been short changed.
      The Minister will be aware of the criticism contained in a recent article in The Times. It suggested that France has been more successful in setting up institutions for teaching banking in Poland, whereas the seminars that we have promoted have been of much less benefit. Tourism has many benefits, not only because it employs many people but because it will earn foreign exchange. Yet know-how funds have been directed to only one small tourist project in Cracow. The Minister should look at the claims of tourism.
      The Opposition welcome the scheme as far as it goes. It is but a small part of a panoply of measures which seek to cope with the changes in eastern and central Europe. Those changes are wholly unprecedented and are turning a command economy into one in which the market will have a place, albeit in a social context. We are ready to co-operate with the Government but, as I have said, we shall be wary of any attempt to mould eastern and central Europe in the image of Thatcherism. We are reassured by the fact that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Bristol,

      735
      West (Mr. Waldegrave), is in charge of the programme, making it less likely that a narrow ideological vision will prevail.
      We stress the need for flexibility. The Government should not take the view that all the countries in eastern and central Europe have the same problems. They should pay attention to each of the countries and policy should be subject to constant review. When there is a change of Government, we shall try to ensure that the right hon. Member for Bristol, West remains a member of the advisory committee. In working with the Government on the matter, our objective is to target aid and assistance as well as possible and to improve its scope.
      With all the reservations that I have mentioned, we give a broad blessing to the know-how funds.
      6.40 pm
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), although I am not at all grateful to him for his unfortunate remarks about me personally at the end of his otherwise admirable speech. On a more serious note, I greatly welcome the tone of what he said.
      The introduction to the debate by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), was exemplary, as was the Committee's report, which was extremely useful to us on a number of counts. I wish that I could say the same for the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), which was mildly deplorable. To mock her colleagues and ours for going to find out about the eastern European countries seemed sad. To say that one must listen to the people on the ground but not go to the countries seemed odd. She then spent several billions of pounds and we look for the normal rebuttal from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) tomorrow.
      We have had a good debate with speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) made a good speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) brought us back to sense. We now have the task of helping the east European countries. We must not impose anything on them. If they are interested in privatisation, it is not because we have sought to impose it on them but because they want to diversify and pluralise their economies. The demand comes from them. They look to us because they have seen us undertake a much smaller but similar task.
      The east European countries do not look to us only on economic matters. The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that, as did the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). The institutional help that we can give to such countries is greatly valued by them. They have come to us to ask for help in setting up non-political civil services, local administrations and police forces. The industrial and commercial aspect of the debate is vital, but it is not the only aspect. The know-how funds were not set up solely as a commercial and industrial support operation. I hope that we shall use them, fairly, as much as we can in the interests of this country to bring business here. The problems posed by the moral and institutional
      736
      wastelands left by the communists, as well as the environmental wastelands referred to by several hon. Members and the commercial and financial wastelands, are a much more difficult aspect.
      The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made a powerful speech. I agree with him that we must be absolutely clear that if the eastern European countries manage to put their economies and their institutions into free and democratic shape, the Community will welcome them. I take a slightly more pessimistic view than him about the time scale in which that might be possible.
      When we compare the transition to democracy in the eastern European countries with that which took place in Spain, it is clear that, although the political rebuilding when a country escapes from communism is similar to that when it escapes from fascism, the economic rebuilding is more difficult. Some elements of a free economy existed under fascism in Spain and Portugal which greatly speeded their transition. That has turned out to be a fact.
      The relationship of the eastern European countries with the Community is vital. Opposition Members are mesmerised by the Prime Minister and bring her into their speeches frequently. It is extraordinary how easy I find it not to mention the Leader of the Opposition in my speeches. The Prime Minister is leading the battle, with help from Holland, Germany and other countries, for an open trading system and a liberal trading Community. That is far more important to the interests of the eastern European countries than anything else that we could do. It has turned out that Lenin's old joke about the capitalists selling the communists the rope with which to hang themselves was wrong in every respect. First, they managed to strangle themselves with the rope and then they did not pay for it.
      I noticed the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) nod from a sedentary position during the debate when the concept of differentiation was mentioned. It seems absolutely right that there should be differentiation in the jargon. We should try to relate our support to the development of the institutions which the reformers whom we supported in the years of communism sought to build. Those reformers urged differentiation on us. We have not thought it up for ourselves. That is why there is hesitation about giving aid to the Soviet Union, and it is right that there should be. We do not say that we should never offer support, but we should offer support that helps the transition to new institutions and does not simply undermine the forces that are pressing for change. If we simply pay to put consumer goods on the shelves for a year or two, we shall have done nothing to help produce more consumer goods in the long term. We are not saying no. We are saying yes. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, if we can be assured that the analysis has been done and that the money that we put in will help the transition, we shall consider it seriously.
      I have referred to the European Community, which has a crucial role to play both as an ultimate target for the eastern European countries and in the meantime in our association agreements to provide markets in which the liberalising economies can sell their goods. Other multinational and multilateral organisations are vital. First, there is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which we shall welcome to London with its French chairman. We agree with the Select Committee's

      737
      recommendaton that the EBRD should be paid out of the Overseas Development Agency eastern European support line and not out of the multilateral organisations line.
      The EBRD will be one of the key institutions. Conditionality will work with it in relation to the Soviet Union at least at the beginning. That has been made clear by its founding members and it is right. It is vital to achieve international co-ordination on the broad thrust of the work of the group of 24. That work is being done for the first time in a wide forum by the Commission of the European Community. That is a considerable step in showing how central the EC is to all the changes taking place. Commissioner Andriessen has done extremely well in the work that he has undertaken.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a good short speech about Romania. I agree with him that we should not cut off contacts with the Romanians. On the contrary, we should show them what we mean by democracy, which we criticise them for not yet having established. Before it becomes established as part of the folklore, I emphasise that Conor Cruise O'Brien was wrong to say that I said that President Iliescu was indistinguishable from Ceausescu. I carefully did not say that. I said that it was depressing that some of the methods used were exactly those used by Ceausescu and that that shook us, but we still asked our ambassador to go to the inauguration to show that we recognise the enormous step forward that has been taken by holding an election.
      We do not believe that Romania yet meets the criteria for the know-how funds. We hope that we have sent a sharp signal by not inviting it to the first group of 24 meeting. We hope that that shock produces results. We do not want to push Romania out. We hope that the shock will encourage Romania to do things that will enable us to bring it in. I hope that both sides of the House agree with that.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Waldegrave: We had 40 minutes of speeches from the Opposition Front Bench during my right hon. Friend's debate, so I cannot give way if other hon. Members wish me to comment on their speeches. I am in the hon. Gentleman's hands.
      There has been a major operation in the multilateral forums, with the Community at its centre, to respond to events in eastern Europe. As the right hon. Member for Devonport said, the security aspects of changes in eastern Europe are far more important than much of what we laboured to negotiate in the Vienna arms control negotiations, important though those negotiations were. If we have a group of free, democratic, economically successful countries at the centre of Europe, it will do far more for our security than any negotiations about a few hundred aircraft or tanks. That is why events at the NATO summit this week are crucial. The multilateral security negotiations are not irrelevant to the debate.
      I now come to what we have tried to do bilaterally. First, there are the know-how funds. It was unfair of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley to quote from The Economist only the critical remarks. She quoted the following passage:
      "The most stinging complaint is simple: for expertise read fripperies."
      In fact, The Economist set out the criticisms and then knocked them down. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady did
      738
      not quote the knocking-down passages. Her research assistant was either idle or unfair. I shall right the balance by quoting the final paragraph of the article. It reads:
      "Many of the business men who have brushed with the fund have been impressed. They agree with its view that eastern Europe needs know-how even more than cash, and they generally endorse the fund's decision to make aid conditional upon countries holding free elections and introducing free markets."
      The hon. Lady may not like the following passage:
      "Why not extend the good idea, several have asked, and apply the same conditions to debt-ridden dirigiste countries in the third world?"
      I shall reply to Mr. Boyes, who I do not consider to be one of the leading commentators on these matters, with the opinion of the man who, along with Timothy Garton Ash, is the best writer on eastern Europe—Neal Ascherson. On Sunday 3 June, Mr. Ascherson wrote—I commend hon. Members and the hon. Lady's research assistant to read the article—
      "The know-how fund, aware of this, warns its experts not to be too British in their approach. It is a limitation but no other western country anxious to assist infant democracies in eastern Europe has produced anything half so adaptable. Here is the starving man. There is the pig. The British response is to offer him neither a pistol nor a tub of apple sauce but a cooking pot."
      I like it.
      Mr.Sedgemore rose—
      Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member has spoken already at enormous length and has delighted us all with a range of sedentary interjections throughout the afternoon.
      Mr. Sedgemore: If the know-how fund is beyond criticism, as the Minister is saying, why are staff in the embassies in eastern Europe criticising it so severely?
      Mr. Waldegrave: I accept that the know-how fund is not beyond criticism. Indeed, I am about to make some criticisms of it. The hon. Gentleman has produced another example of how he does not facilitate our debates. During the last financial year we spent about £2.5 million on the fund. We were spending money as we were setting up the organisation. I am well aware of the justified criticism that was made—the customer is not always wrong—that it was not always easy to learn how to contact the fund and to ascertain the criteria. Those difficulties arose because we were setting the criteria as we went along. I am willing to believe—this may be astonishing to some—that the fund is not perfect yet. However, it is becoming very much better by the day and more and more satisfied customers are writing to tell me that. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, it is in the interests of both sides of the House and of the country generally that we get the fund right. We shall listen to criticism and try to put things in order. The structure of the fund has become considerably better. That is why people like Neil Ascherson write as they do.
      The hon. Member for Cynon Valley criticises Ministers for visiting eastern Europe. I shall rebut her argument. One of the purposes of the know-how fund is to involve every Whitehall Department in using British expertise in the round. It should not be the Foreign Office alone that is involved. In some ways the know-how fund is unique.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been to each of the countries that are involved with the know-how fund. We have the skills for which they asked and they have been deployed by officials of the Department. The three countries wanted to know

      739
      how to set up small businesses and how to diversify from collapsing major capital-intensive industries into new industries. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department for taking on new work and performing extremely well.
      The same comments can be made about agriculture. It is necessary for contacts to be made at ministerial level. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has visited several countries. In Poland, for example, there is a scheme worth £50 million which will meet exactly the purpose for which the Poles asked. They want small productive businesses effectively to distribute the food that at present never reaches the shops.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and a team of Department officials have helped, as they were asked, to advise and assist on and with local government administration. That is another example of sensible assistance. Other schemes have focused on police training in Poland and environmental matters. Some of these activities have been almost too big for the know-how fund. The fund, with British utilities, has been undertaking some work, but the big capital spending must come from multilateral organisations such as the World bank and others. We are doing a little where we are requested to intervene.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are any discussions taking place with Soviet authorities about the transfer of agriculture technology and managerial expertise to improve distribution in the Soviet Union? Would not that be a major contribution to resolving the distribution problems of the Soviet Union?
      Mr. Waldegrave: Those who want us to rush at the Soviet Union should understand that that country has not yet asked for anything. It might be polite to wait until it does. If we were to get involved, I would have a personal bias in favour of exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Some of the elements are already in place. For example, ICI has been working for the Soviet Union to try to help that country to develop agriculture, especially in distribution and retailing. I can imagine that a sectoral project would be attractive. I am speaking personally and far ahead of any analysis. I am sure that note will be taken of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
      I note the views of the Select Committee, whose Chairman is my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, on the range of projects that should be supported by the fund and on the range of organisations and individuals that should be consulted. The point is well taken. There is no shortage of proposals, and that is partly why we are attracting some criticism. When individuals are turned down, they sometimes write to their Members of Parliament to tell them that it is scandalous that certain projects have been rejected. That is not an unknown phenomenon when dealing with aid. We should do better with our publicity, and any criticism of it is valid. We are trying to bring some thought to bear on improving it. We wish to make it easier for those who have never had any experience of eastern Europe or of aid products to get in touch with the know-how fund.
      I note with interest the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel that a general stocktaking seminar should take place in due course—perhaps after six months,
      740
      for example—to be attended by a range of the organisations involved so as to ascertain whether there is adequate co-ordination. That might be a job for the Great Britain-East Europe Centre, which is so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton was succinct and right on the ball. The same can be said of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who referred to the problem of visas.
      The bilateral programme—I have referred already to multilateral agencies—starts with the know-how fund and then moves on to a difficult job that will take years to complete, which is to shift the general diplomacy of the United Kingdom so that it occupies a rather more eastern-Europe-oriented stance. I think that the Foreign Office has done well already. It has found 60 new London-based or locally engaged staff. That is not a bad record in such a short time. It is not easy to transfer that number of staff so quickly. We are looking for 37 more staff by the end of 1992. At a time of necessary expenditure constraints, we are having to impose some strains elsewhere. Surely it is right to shift these people. As I have said, the Foreign Office is moving.
      Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Waldegrave: No. I have only three more minutes in which to bring my reply to an end.
      We shall ask the British Council to undertake a good deal more, I am certain, on the English language front. I cannot say more than that now. Negotiations and discussions are taking place. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we should respond, with Canada and the United States, to the explicit desire of the countries in question to replace Russian as their second language with English. We shall not do it all ourselves but we must make a contribution. We are doing so already with specific projects through the know-how fund. These projects are aimed at providing English language training for those whom the know-how fund wishes to involve.
      The British Council should take the full weight of the major expansion, and that is something that we shall have to consider in future.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said, visas will represent another change in the relations of British institutions and British Ministries with eastern Europe. Like other hon. Members, I am all too conscious of the continuing strain that is put on our relations with eastern European countries because of the pressures that are brought to bear by the application for and granting of visas. We shall do what we can to simplify and to provide a quicker service, but we must examine each country individually and judge separately the case for each country to determine whether, at the right time, we can abolish visas entirely or in part. That would be much the best way of dealing with the problem in general. We must look carefully at the interests of our country before we do so.
      Our bilateral help is additional to and separate from the United Kingdom's overseas aid budget for developing countries. The hon. Member for Swansea, East asked that such aid should be treated separately. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has already said that that aid is a separate item in the ODA budget. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that.

      741
      The hon. Member for Cynon Valley was right in saying that there is anxiety in the third world about the fact that private capital may go to eastern Europe, but there is nothing that she or I can do about that. The only people who can do anything are those responsible for financial policies in third-world countries who will now have to compete against Europe.
      It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to paragraph. (3) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

Clyde Port Authority Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
7 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your assistance as I am given to understand that when the Bill was scrutinised by the Committee on Unopposed Bills, counsel for the Clyde port authority mentioned amendments that were to be made to the Bill in another place. If the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) were to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would I be in order to ask him to outline the proposed amendments apparently to be made in another place?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I can neither anticipate nor comment on what might happen in another place. Tonight we are debating Third Reading and I hope that the House will stick to the normal confines of that debate and comment on what is in the Bill.
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that the Government have introduced a Command document, "Private Bills and New Procedures"? It is a consultation document, dealing with the private Bill procedure. Are you further aware that, tonight, we shall be discussing a Ways and Means resolution dealing with the levy on port privatisations, which directly affects the Bill now before the House?
I do not wish to detain the House, but given that the Government are about to change the rules and regulations by which we debate private Bills and that there is a money resolution before us that deals with the Bill, has any representation been made to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to defer the Bill pending the completion of the Government's consultation? Given that this Bill is truncated and that it will be followed by a Ways and Means resolution dealing with the same Bill, is not the Bill hybrid? Surely we should seek your protection.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: My answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes and no. Yes, I am aware of the document to which he refers, but the House has yet to debate it and make decisions on it. It will be for the House to decide on any changes that may be made to the private Bill procedure. At the moment we are dealing with the procedure as it is. No representation has been made to me about the hybridity of the Bill.
The Ways and Means resolution does not deal specifically with the Bill, but is of a general nature. When we get to it the hon. Gentleman may seek to catch my eye and comment upon this Bill. He cannot do it the other way round—he cannot anticipate what the House may debate and decide later.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recollect that we raised the question about the Bill's hybridity on a previous occasion, but tonight I am seeking your guidance on the Government's involvement in the Bill. It is supposed to be a private Bill and the Government should not be seeking to interfere. I find it rather strange, therefore, that yet again the Government have sought to ensure that a three-line Whip operates after the debate on the Bill. That ensures that they have sufficient troops—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Redmond: In view of the obvious Government involvement and further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), would not it be correct to suspend the private business until the report on private Bill procedures has been debated? That would ensure that we had a sensible and sane method of dealing with private business.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I omitted to mention in my first point of order that when I asked the Lord President of the Council on Thursday whether we could have an early debate on the document dealing with private Bills, he said that there would be no such debate. That is why I sought your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you are the only one who can protect us from debating a Bill, the basis of which will be subsequently changed by the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill before the House will be dealt with by the procedures as contained in appropriate Standing Orders. The question of future changes does not have any bearing on our proceedings.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are faced with a strange situation because the Bill that we are to debate will not be anywhere near the Bill that will be enacted, given that I understand that the counsel for the promoters and the sponsor said that the Bill would not be competent unless particular amendments were made. The promoters have given an undertaking that that will be put right in the House of Lords, but that means that we shall not have the opportunity to debate the Bill in the form intended by its promoters and sponsor.
The Government have said that the Bill is private, but they have said that amendments will be made to the Finance Bill to deal with 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of the Clyde port authority. The Bill that we shall discuss tonight is not that which will be enacted. Is that in order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not unusual for public or private Bills to go to another place and be amended. If that happens—the hon. Gentleman seems to have more information than me—those amendments will return to the House so that it will have an opportunity to comment on them. It might make sense if we allowed the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is in charge of the Bill, to address the House as he might be able to throw some light on these matters.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the Chairman of Ways and Means and we all respect that position.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Few ways and little means.
Mr. Haynes: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), you said that you did not know what was going on, but we do. Not many moments ago a broadcast was made about the Bill—the Government have struck a deal on this private Bill. You are the Chairman of Ways and Means, but you obviously do not know what is going on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker indicated assent.
Mr. Haynes: I note that you are in total agreement with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are not in the picture and you must be told. The Government are pulling a fast one. The Government have whipped in a payroll vote because of the deal that has been struck. We Back Benchers need protection because that sort of thing goes on far too often. I do not represent Scotland, but I am interested in the Bill because of the unfair way in which the Government have acted.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must take due note of what is going on and I am looking for some action from you. I respect your position and I support you in the many things that you do, but I hope that you will give Back Benchers support now because of the Government's fiddle on the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, as always, gives me much more protection than I can offer him. Every day in this place I find people doing all sorts of things about which I should be informed but which I never learn about except at second or third hand. I suppose that that is part of the facts of parliamentary life. I have no responsibility for what the Government may be doing about organising votes. We should get on.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but some of us are confused about this. We all understand perfectly well that Bills are introduced in the House or in another place. As they proceed, amendments are moved, but if, as is suggested, a Bill is to be introduced in the House to which major amendments are, apparently with the agreement of the Bill's sponsors, to be added at a later stage, surely the proper procedure is that the Bill should be withdrawn and the amendments that have been agreed placed on the face of the Bill where we can all see them. If not, it will be a totally unreal debate.
I have no axe to grind. I do not know whether I shall vote against or for the Bill. But in exercising a choice, as we all have to do, we should be able to make our choice based on the facts of the matter and the face of the Bill. If there are deficiencies in the Bill that must be put right in another place, surely the correct procedure is to withdraw the Bill and bring it back later so that we can all see, in the Bill, what is going on. That way, we can make more progress and better sense.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The correct procedure is that laid down in the Standing Orders that we are following this evening. I have told the House that I have no knowledge of those amendments. If they are thought appropriate, they may well be moved in another place, but it is not for
744
me to comment on or anticipate what may happen in another place. If the Bill is amended in another place, those amendments will, under Standing Orders, be returned to this House. Instead of continuing to speculate about possible amendments, it may be more sensible for the House to listen to the hon. Member for Eastwood, who might enlighten the House about what amendments may be forthcoming and their extent.
Mr. Haynes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, you keep mentioning the other place, but we are dealing with this place at present, and we are not getting a fair deal. I remember when you sat on the Back Benches, at the Opposition Dispatch Box and at the Government Dispatch Box when you were a first-class Minister, and you know as well as me what goes on in here. We are asking you for help because we need a blockage as the Government are getting away with murder. It is high time that you grabbed the nettle, because we are not satisfied. We always look to the Chair for help and we are looking for help from you. We are not bothered about the other end because the Bill is not there yet. It is in here, which is where we are dealing with it right now. We want you to do something about it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound by Standing Orders, as is the House, and I am following the requirements of Standing Orders.
Mr. Worthington: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for someone moving a private Bill to circumvent one of the stages of consideration in the House by agreeing to introduce major amendments that counsel for the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said were essential for the Bill to progress? Is it in order to circumvent a stage of consideration in the House by giving an undertaking of which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are unaware, as are most hon. Members, so that the Bill may proceed more rapidly through both Houses of Parliament? Is not that underhand?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had dealt with those matters.
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have some clarification? There has been a fair amount of criticism from Conservative Members about private Bills in this place, and we have a classic example now. I stand to be corrected but I believe that when such a Bill starts off, it goes through the usual scrutiny of the Private Bill Office, is advertised and, if unopposed at 2.30 pm, proceeds to its next stage. Would not the proper place for those so-called amendments to be made be in the Committee on Unopposed Bills? Not to do so is to mislead that Committee and the House by seeking to give a defective Bill a Third Reading. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seek advice from the Clerk at the Table on whether the correct procedure has been followed and whether those amendments should have been made in the Committee on Unopposed Bills? They have not suddenly come to light, and the Government and the Bill's promoters are misleading the House and seeking to destroy your office, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not have the detailed knowledge that some hon. Members seem to possess of what went on and what was said in the Committee that dealt with the Bill. I can only tell the House, not for the

745
first time this evening, that what we are doing this evening is perfectly in order, conforms with Standing Orders and is not an unusual practice. Should their Lordships find it necessary to amend the Bill, they will discuss and decide on their amendments, which will then come before this House. I repeat that I have no knowledge of such amendments, and it is not for me to anticipate what may be said or done in their Lordships' House.
Mr. Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a valid point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a valid point of order. I hope that it is much more valid than some of those that I have had to endure so far.
Mr. Bell: I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to "Erskine May," which states on page 861:
"If any stage of a bill is proceeded with when the notice has not been duly given, or the proper interval allowed, or if notice is taken of any other informality, the proceeding will be null and void, and the stage must be repeated."
I respectfully submit that the Government's publication of a new document invalidates the proceedings so far, in accordance with "Erskine May", page 861, and I invite you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suspend the sitting until you have had time to scrutinise the matter carefully.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had dealt with that point earlier. The document to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which he held up is not before the House at present. We should get on.
Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It arises out of your ruling. You rightly say that you are not officially aware of any amendments to be tabled in the other place. However, if the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), during his opening speech in the next few minutes, tells the Chamber that he is aware that amendments will be tabled in the other place, does not that alter the basis of your ruling?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not in the slightest.
7.17 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The issue before the House this evening is fairly straight forward. The Bill received its Second Reading on 14 May with a substantial majority. There are no petitions against the Bill; in particular, there are no petitions from the riparian local authorities, which have been—
Dr. Godman: Is it or is it not the case that some hours ago the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) swore an oath of allegiance to the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and, in return, was promised the payroll vote tonight?
Mr. Stewart: I am not sure whether it is in order for me or not—[interruption.]—for me to reply.
Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious matter. I think that you should find out exactly what has happened because I smell a rat here—there is a right fiddle going on. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must find out exactly what is going on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The best way of finding out what is going on is to listen to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).
Mr. Haynes: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has not answered the question.
Mr. Stewart: I am going to. If it is in order for me to reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I can assure him that, to the best of my knowledge, Scottish Television carried an interview with me some little time ago confirming that I propose to speak and vote against a possible guillotine motion on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. I understand that the BBC is carrying other reports, but there we are.
As I told the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, there are no petitions against the Bill from the riparian local authorities, which are the obvious authorities to be most concerned about the Bill, and, as it happens, are all controlled by the Labour party. I understand that they do not intend to petition against the Bill in the other place, either.
Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is showing characteristic courtesy in these exchanges. Greenock water front heritage association is likely to place a petition of objection against the Bill in the other place.
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but that does not contradict what I said, which was that none of the local authorities was going to petition against the Bill. The hon. Gentleman may wish to correct me, but I understand that Inverclyde district council has decided not to petition in the other place.
Mr. David Lambie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and I attended a meeting yesterday in Kilbirnie, where one of the leading councillors on Cunninghame district council mentioned a discussion which had taken place in one of the council's committees about the Bill? He reported that Cunninghame district council was taking advice, and had not yet decided whether to oppose the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North will agree that, at present, the councillors are of the opinion that they should oppose it.
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that information. The point is that none of the local authorities involved has entered a petition in this House against the Bill. There is time for local authorities to petition another place if they so wish, which answers a question that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked me on Second Reading.
I wish not to repeat at length the general arguments of the debate on Second Reading but to move on to deal with some of the points raised, fairly and properly, by Opposition Members since Second Reading.
Trust ports are unusual—they are independent, they are not accountable to anyone, and their powers and sources of finance are limited, which is why the private Bill is before the House tonight.
The Clyde port authority is an historic port of immense importance not only to the west of Scotland but to the rest of Scotland and the United Kingdom and Europe. The situation of the port has changed sharply over the years,

747
partly because of the geographical shift of trade from the west to the east: the increase in the United Kingdom's trade with the European Community—it now accounts for about 73 per cent. of United Kingdom trade—has benefited ports in the east and the south rather than those in the west. Another factor is that we no longer import oil; the Clyde port authority handled some 12 million tonnes of imported crude from the middle east before North sea oil came on stream.
Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to draw my attention to some of the alleged defects in the Bill, which may or may not be remedied in another place? If one or two parts of the Bill need tightening up, I should be grateful for an explanation of where they are and how the hon. Gentleman intends to tighten them.
Mr. Stewart: I cannot forecast what will happen to the Bill in another place. If any amendments are made, as the noble Lords are perfectly entitled to do, this House will have the opportunity to debate them subsequently.
Mr. Worthington rose—
Mr. Stewart: I have already given way about five times.
Mr. Worthington: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has been so badly briefed that he does not know the contents of the amendments that are to be moved in another place which the Counsel to Mr. Speaker says are essential to make the Bill competent?
Mr. Stewart: I am making a perfectly fair and valid point, which is that the other place is entitled to make amendments to the Bill if it so wishes. If it does, the amendments must come back to the House to be considered. Only if no amendments are made in another place will the Bill not come back to this House.
Mr. Worthington rose—
Mr. Stewart: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman on that subject and I should like to get a little further into my speech.
The Clyde faces competition from ports on the Forth, on the east coast of Scotland, and from other west coast ports, notably Liverpool, which is privately owned but has received substantial assistance from the taxpayers, and Bristol, which is municipally owned, and which has received substantial assistance from the local authority.
The reason for the Bill—as we debated fully on Second Reading—is that the authority, like other trust ports, has to operate under the restrictions imposed by the Clyde Port Authority Order 1965. Much of the debate on Second Reading and many of the issues mentioned by hon. Members then and subsequently have centred on the question that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and others mentioned on Second Reading: accepting that there are legal restrictions, what has the Clyde port authority been restricted from doing? The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked that in a recent letter to the managing director of the Clyde port authority. I am glad to have his confirmation that my delivery of the letter to the board this afternoon resulted in him getting the reply before the debate.
I shall spend a moment or two giving the House some
748
practical examples of how the restrictions on the port authority's operations have hindered developments that most people would regard as highly desirable.
My first example is the development of the site bounded by Robertson street, Broomielaw and York street in Glasgow which is well known to Opposition Members who represent Glasgow constituencies. It is immediately opposite the authority's headquarters building. As landowner, the authority had the opportunity to participate in a joint development with Glasgow and Oriental Development Limited. Having taken legal advice as a result of uncertainty about its acquisition powers, the authority was unable to proceed with that joint development, and subsequently had to sell the land to Glasgow and Oriental Development Limited, which is now progressing the development without the authority as a partner. The total borrowings of the authority are restricted by statute. Any project requiring major capital investment that would result in the borrowing limit being exceeded would necessitate reversion to Parliament, with all that that entails under present legislation.
Opposition Members will appreciate that many of the projects that may have been considered involve commercial confidentiality. I shall cite a couple of practical examples of how the existing restrictions under which the Clyde port authority operates have inhibited, and do inhibit, its reasonable wish to go ahead with sensible developments. As I said on Second Reading, the authority constantly has to consult Queen's Counsel and consider whether the proposals are intra vires. That, in addition to the burden on management time, is bound to inhibit effective decision making.
As the House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced that the authority has planning consent to proceed, in partnership with Tarmac Construction, with a development of about 200 acres of redundant land at Braehead, which is, I think, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham)—[Interruption.] I am wrong; it is in one of the Paisley constituencies and close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Thomas Graham: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the concern of the local elected members about the proposal to allow the scheme to go ahead. I hope that I shall have an opportunity to say something about that later. The hon. Gentleman knows that the district council is extremely concerned about that development.
Mr. Stewart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. He and I, although of different political views, have often co-operated on certain projects. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's support concerning the problems in the Armitage Shanks Tubal works at Braehead.
That development will provide out-of-town shopping, leisure, housing, and commercial facilities. However, under current legislation there are doubts about whether the authority has sufficient powers to manage the development once it has been completed. The Bill would remove those doubts.
The authority wishes to join with other landowners, such as Glasgow district council, to develop land at Yorkhill quay with a consortium to be headed by a new company called Clyde Maritime. It would be a major

749
scheme costing about £300 million. However, under the 1965 legislation the authority is precluded from investing in that company except by selling out to a controlling interest subsequently. It cannot realise the true potential of its land in that area. Those are examples of the real and practical problems that the authority is currently—
Mr. Lambie: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Clyde port authority is a ports authority. Can he give me any examples of restrictions on the Clyde port authority's duty as a ports authority? He has given examples of restrictions on the authority as a land developer—an exploiter of an existing asset—but other than the dock labour scheme, which is now abolished, there are no restrictions on the Clyde port authority as a ports authority. Does the hon. Gentleman now recognise that there is no need for the Bill?
Mr. Stewart: I shall mention some of the statutory requirements on the authority, but first I wish to make a general point. Only if the authority can develop all its assets fully will it have the resources to enable it to act as a fully commercial harbour and port authority. It is not in the interests of the authority's port operations for it to be unable to realise fully the value of its other assets.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: I would rather continue, but as the hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench spokesman I shall give way.
Mr. Wilson: I want to pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). I understand the argument that, in order to bring in the money to carry out the river functions, the authority wants to realise its assets. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a balance must be struck? Does he have any view on what proportion of the CPA's revenue should come as manager of supermarkets, leisure parks and all the other desirable or undesirable developments on its banks? Under a different ownership, at what point would its interest in such activities cease to be to the benefit and begin to be to the detriment of its marine activities—which by that time would be subsidiary and, perhaps, even marginal?
Mr. Stewart>: The easiest way to answer the hon. Gentleman's point is to emphasise the new structure, in which there will be a holding company and a successor company. The successor company will take on all the current powers, duties and responsibilities of the authority under statute. It will have exactly the same responsibilities in relation to its port activities as it has currently.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
Mr. Stewart: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but then I hope hon. Members will allow me to continue because I have already given way a number of times.
Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Will the privatised port authority continue dredging in the River Clyde?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady has raised a good point, which was first raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Siliars), to whom I always pay attention because I am his constituent. I shall come to the issue of dredging, but if the hon. Lady will forgive me, there is another matter that I wish to raise
750
first because there has been some publicity about it. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie is usually the most courteous of hon. Members. I was a little surprised to see the press coverage of his statement when he spoke as a Labour Front-Bench spokesman on employment—
Mr. Worthington: No.
Mr. Stewart: That is what it says in the press release, which has the House of Commons crest on it. I was surprised by his attack on Sir Robert Easton. If the hon. Gentleman was speaking as a Scottish Front-Bench spokesman on employment, I can only presume that that attack on Sir Robert Easton had the full knowledge and support of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Secretary of State. That also surprised me a little because Sir Robert Easton is the chairman of Yarrow, the largest employer in Garscadden.
I shall quote what is presumably the hon. Member for Garscadden's view of Sir Robert Easton, as expressed by his junior spokesman, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. He said:
"Why on earth should Sir Robert Easton and his board be able to profit from this sale … Why should they be able to put their hands in the till … Why should they be able to line their own pockets by deciding how many free shares they should have?"
Sir Robert Easton has as much chance of free shares as does the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. The Bill provides that the Clyde port authority, a holding trust, will have the power to transfer securities without consideration—that is, shares with an interest-free loan or whatever—to employees of the holding company or any subsidiary thereof. Under clause 14(4), it is empowered to
"provide for one or more employees' share schemes to be established in respect of the holding company; and any such scheme may provide for the transfer of shares without consideration."
Beneficiaries of employee share schemes can be only bona fide employees or former employees. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who has kindly handed me a letter informing me of his support for the Bill.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentlemen should not believe a word of it. We know that that piece of paper is the latest set of guarantees on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. Stewart: I am happy to assure the House that the guarantee that I have received is that my hon. and learned Friend will be here to vote at the end of the debate.
Sir Robert Easton and the other members of the board, except for the three executive members, are not employees. Therefore, Sir Robert Easton and the non-executive members of the board cannot get shares on any preferential basis except that available generally to residents of the area.
Mr. Worthington: I draw the attention of the hon. Member to clause 8(3), which provides:
"Securities required to be issued in pursuance of this section shall be issued or allotted at such time or times and on such terms…as the Trust may direct."
The members of the trust will be Sir Robert Easton and the board of the Clyde port authority. Does that not give them the power to allocate securities to themselves?
Mr. Stewart: Of course it does not. As they are members of the trust, they cannot allocate securities to themselves. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he may believe Mr. Tom O'Connor, the former chairman of the local port workers branch of the Transport and General Workers Union, who has written to the managing director of the Clyde port authority. He will doubtless be well known as a stalwart of the Labour movement in the west of Scotland, although I do not know whether he is still a member of the national executive of the TGWU. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is agreeing with me. I will happily pass copies of this letter to anyone who wishes one. It reads as follows:
"I was pleased to have the opportunity of discussing at the Board meeting on Tuesday the articles which appeared last week, in the Scotsman and Evening Times. Both those articles, which I understand were based on a press release issued by Tony Worthington, M.P., contained inaccurate and insulting references to the honesty and integrity of the Members of the Board, and I wish to place on record for posterity my most strenuous objection to these defamatory remarks."
I am glad to have had the opportunity to read that letter.
Mr. Wilson: Did the hon. Gentleman check the typewriter?
Mr. Stewart: It is written in Mr. O'Connor's hand.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked me, quite fairly, about dredging. This matter has been raised by a number of hon. Members, in Committee and on Second Reading. The Clyde port authority, like every other harbour or port authority in the United Kingdom, has no express statutory duty to dredge the river. The Clyde port authority has power to dredge, as set out in paragraph 16 of the Clyde Port Authority Order 1965, which established the authority. The question is whether the successor company has any authority to dredge the river or whether there would be anything to oblige a successor company to dredge the river if it decided not to do so.
Dr. Godman: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the 1965 order. Paragraph 16 states:
"The ports authority may, from time to time, deepen, dredge or scour and improve the bed and foreshore of the river and upper Clyde within the port in or near any approach to the port."
I have today tabled a new clause to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill that would make this power statutory. I should like the hon. Gentleman to support the new clause when we debate it in Committee.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt confirm that members of that Committee do not always disagree. I am grateful for the many worthwhile and penetrating interventions that he made to my speech late on Thursday night, which showed a great deal of knowledge about the annual accounts of charity. However, the hon. Gentleman is leading me down another path. I doubt whether his news about the tabling of a new clause will be received with joy and delight by the Scottish Office, but I hope that there will be time to consider it. I am sure that he would be the first to object if the Government introduced a timetable motion that prevented a full and fair debate of the clause.
Mr. Graham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was born in Govan and I have always seen the Clyde as a
752
working river. The only way to keep it as such is to dredge it regularly so that ships can use it. Everyone, from one end of the Clyde to the other, sees it as the port authority's duty to keep the river open. Once it stopped dredging, the river would silt up and would no longer be navigable. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise the concern of Labour Members to ensure that the river remains a working river and that dredging is carried out? The Clyde port authority has always been the recognised body to do that.
Mr. Stewart: Yes. I shall now return to the specific point made by the hon. Member for Maryhill. I was diverted for a moment.
I accept that this is a serious argument. I emphasise that the fact that there is no express duty, neither in this Bill nor in any legislation affecting a harbour authority, to dredge is not the same as saying that either the authority or the successor company should stop dredging. The successor company inherits all the powers and duties of the authority. Clause 4(2) says that the successor authority
"shall … be treated for all purposes as if it were the same person as the Port Authority."
Therefore, the successor company is in the same position as the port authority.
The authority has a duty, under paragraph 13 of the 1965 order,
"to take such steps from time to time as they may consider necessary for the maintenance and improvement of the port and the accommodation and facilities (including navigational facilities) afforded therein or in connection therewith".
Therefore, the authority must carry out those steps with the benefit of the port undertaking in mind. If dredging is necessary to maintain or improve the port, the authority should dredge. Exactly the same principles apply to the future activities of the successor company established under the Bill. Nothing in the legislation imposes on the successor company any less onerous obligations in relation to dredging than those that exist for the present authority.
Mr. Sillars: There is a characteristic difference between the future and the present. At present we are talking about a public undertaking which has implicit obligations to the public good. In future we shall be talking about a private company which, at some later date, may claim that Parliament did not impose a specific obligation. There may have been some residual implied responsibility. I am not splitting hairs or words, but that is entirely different from imposing an obligation.
Given that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is involved in the drafting and the arguments, can he give us an assurance that there is no reason why the promoters of the Bill would resist an amendment in the other place that eliminated all doubt about the future and imposed an obligation as distinct from some residual responsibility which the successor company could claim was not in the Act and did not necessarily have to be carried out?
Mr. Stewart: I shall not speculate on what might or might not happen in another place. I was not claiming that I had been involved in the technical drafting of the Bill. The hon. Member for Govan, who is my Member of Parliament, is quite right to say that I am involved in the argument.
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have an assurance from the Chair that the Bill is technically correct and that no technical

753
amendments will be made? If we pass the Bill, it is important that it is technically correct. If it is technically defective, we should question whether the Clerks have given it sufficient scrutiny.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill is in order. It would not be before the House if it were not.
Mr. Stewart: May I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Govan—
Mr. Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to delay the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), but may we take it that all the technical details necessary to make the Bill presentable have been scrutinised and are correct? It may well be that another place will seek to amend the dredging provisions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Bill were technically defective, it would not be before the House. It is for the House to listen to the debate and make up its mind. It is a matter for the House to decide at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Stewart: Let me return to the point of substance raised by the hon. Member for Govan. Of course I cannot speculate on what might or might not happen in another place.
Essentially I am making two key points. First, the successor company has exactly the same obligations that the Clyde port authority has at present. It has exactly the same powers, duties and responsibilities.
Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Stewart: First, I shall finish my response to the hon. Member for Govan.
The successor company has exactly the same duties and responsibilities as the Clyde port authority has at present. As I have told the House, to the best of my knowledge, no port authority has an express duty in legislation to dredge a river. The legislation covering the Clyde port authority is in line with legislation that applies elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman will know that some port authorities are trusts and others are in the private sector. Some, such as Bristol, are owned and run by the local authority.
Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: I have been generous in giving way, so I fear that this will have to be the last time.
Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Member enlighten the House? He has given repeated assurances that the responsibilities will be exactly the same, but he has the opportunity to write the Bill as he pleases. Why has he decided not to write the Bill in a manner that will ensure that dredging is carried out by imposing a clear duty?
Mr. Stewart: I emphasise that the responsibilities being taken over by the successor company are the same as those held by the Clyde port authority. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable and proper way to proceed.
Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: No.
As I have explained to the House, the fact that there is no express duty in legislation does not mean that the authority or the successor company can stop dredging because of the duties that I have outlined to the House.
754
I have taken up quite a lot of time of the House and a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. Other points have been raised, and I hope that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie will outline some of the points to which the Clyde port authority responded, for example, on the structure. The Bill was sought by the authority and the board was unanimous. There were no petitions against it, and I understand that the Transport and General Workers Union has not attempted to stop the restructuring proposal in Scotland, although it has taken a different position in regard to Bills applying south of the border.
I hope that the House will feel that I have dealt with some of the major questions that have been raised and will agree to give the Bill a Third Reading tonight.
7.57 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: I should like to point out to the House that recently the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided to give Braehead, a monster project, the go-ahead. That concerns me and the people in my constituency. I represent a huge area of the Clyde, as every Member of Parliament knows. Renfrew district council vigorously opposed the Braehead development, which will destroy the infrastructure of Renfrewshire. It will cause immense problems for the town of Paisley, destroying the new shopping centre which would have been built there. We have recently agreed to the Tilbury operation in Linwood.
You may well ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what this has to do with the Bill—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On Third Reading, the House is required to confine itself to what is in the Bill.
Mr. Graham: I am trying to confine myself to what is in the Bill. The Bill has immense repercussions for my constituency. If the Bill is passed tonight, my constituency will suffer.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right in the technical sense that the Bill gives the Clyde port authority powers to manage the Braehead development, for example. Will he be a little more explicit as to precisely why he is so opposed to that development? The hon. Gentleman, Renfrew district council and I see eye to eye on many issues.
Mr. Graham: The Bill is amazingly damaging to Scotland, and certainly to Renfrewshire. It will cause incredible problems.
There is much concern among people who live on our side of the river that dredging will not be carried out. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) says that if the Bill goes ahead there will be no change, but there must be change. The board will be responsible to shareholders. A commercial decision will be taken not to dredge the River Clyde because it will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. The authority will say, "We do not have the money so we will not dredge it."
When I was on Strathclyde regional council, we gave Clyde port authority financial help to allow it to dredge the river. The authority will still be responsible for keeping the river clear. It is crazy for it to be privatised. It should remain a public corporation, looking after the interests of the Clyde and of the folk who live on its banks.

755
Braehead has been given the go-ahead, but it will do so much damage to the Renfrewshire area that it could make ghost towns of communities such as Erskine and Renfrew and it will certainly hammer Paisley shopping centre. That is a genuine concern about what is happening in the Clyde port.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here because it appears that there has been a bit of collusion. The other week, the Secretary of State dug a hole at Tilbury and said, "Linwood will rise from the ashes—there will be a big new shopping centre, factories and retail units." The Braehead development, which was refused by the council, got the go-ahead from the Secretary of State. He knows that Renfrewshire cannot take a monstrosity of a project like Braehead. What will happen to the Tilbury site at Linwood? It will end up as only housing, with no works, no factories, no warehouses and no shops. It will become a residential area because of the decision to privatise the Clyde port authority.
When the Secretary of State came to dig a hole in the ground at Tilbury in my constituency he knew that the planned development would not take place because of Braehead. That calls into question any future development in the Linwood area and at Inverclyde. Recently, a decision was taken to go ahead with a shopping centre at Inverclyde. That has a lot to do with what is happening to the Clyde port authority, because anything that it does in the Govan area has a massive impact on Renfrewshire and, in effect, deprives Inverclyde of a genuine development opportunity and makes nonsense of the Inverclyde enterprise zone.
I wish that the Secretary of State was here so that I could challenge him and ask whether he knew that he was going to give planning permission for the Braehead site. Did he tell the Tilbury developers, who are spending vast sums in my area, that he was going to give the go-ahead for the Braehead site? Did he tell the developers in Inverclyde that he was going to give the go-ahead for the Braehead site?
The Bill should be thrown out. It seems that there has been collusion between the Secretary of State and the developers of Braehead and Clyde port. He is fattening up the authority for the kill and for somebody to make a lot of money. At the end of the day, the people of Renfrewshire will suffer. I note that the Minister is smiling—he can smile all he likes, and he may smile to the bank, but our folk have suffered enough from the crazy plans of this Government. This is certainly a crazy plan. It is not a plan to help the people of the Clyde or my constituents—it is a plan to make a wee bit on the side to give to the Government's friends, but they will get a resounding no from the people of Renfrewshire at the next general election. It is another gift for the Government's friends, taking from the ordinary men and women who made the Clyde what it is.
8.5 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) spoke with great passion but told us little about how the development of 200 acres at Braehead will affect his
756
constituents. He seemed to think that those 200 acres, whether they were used for housing or whatever, would not help the local economy.
One of the encouraging aspects of the past few years has been how derelict areas of dockland have been given a new lease of life. Throughout the old major ports of the United Kingdom, buildings that previously had been standing derelict for some years have been brought back into use, establishing living, vibrant and healthy economies. That is what happens when one is able to develop and is free of the shackles of socialism and socialist practices.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said, the Bill received substantial support on Second Reading on 14 May. There were no petitions against it, and none from the riparian local authorities. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, who spoke with such passion, realised that the riparian local authorities are controlled by the Labour party. I accept that Cunninghame district council is still obtaining advice on the Bill. Under our democratic system, if it has an interest in the Bill and believes that its benefits are not what it imagines, it will take action. That is the democratic system functioning. Indeed, the Bill is an example of how the democratic system works. It must go through this House and the other place, and there are opportunities for those interested enough to take action.
The reason for the Bill is that the authority, as currently structured and confined by statute, cannot realise its full potential. Its sources of funding and finance are limited and it is unable to enter into joint ventures to develop land that it owns. Borrowing is limited by statute. If it were in the marketplace, borrowing would be restricted by the risk involved, which would be sensible.
It appears that some areas should and could be developed. I do not have enough local knowledge to comment on the proposals and schemes, but anything that brings life back into our docklands and our riversides must be good. If decision making is affected by statutory limitations on the authority, changes should be made. Only if the authority can utilise and manage its resources and assets will it be able to carry out its core area responsibility for the river and marine activities. That is a sensible use of assets in any organisation. The setting up of the holding company, with the successor company assuming all the responsibility and being accountable, means that, in that sense, nothing will change.
I welcome the fact that employees and former employees will be able to obtain shares. Giving people the opportunity to buy shares in the companies in which they work is my idea of spreading the nation's wealth. There is no greater motivator for an employee than the feeling that he owns part of the company in which he works and there is no greater discipline on a board than the knowledge that the employees are shareholders.
I understand that the Opposition are worried about dredging of the river. All United Kingdom rivers are covered by the same legislation, so the Clyde port authority under the successor company will not be in a different position. It is covered by the Clyde Port Authority Order 1965. I look forward to debating—if we ever reach that stage—the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. We could go on for ever with that Bill, but I should step out of line in this debate if I said more. I wish simply

757
to respond to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. That new clause will affect the responsibilities of the authority or its successor company.
The River Clyde should never be downgraded. It is vital to Scotland's economy and to the welfare of her people. As I said on Second Reading, the Clyde has changed and developed to meet Scotland's needs at each stage—throughout the industrial revolution until today. Who can say what the future holds for that great river and for the successor company that will have the responsibility for management and navigation on the river? Few of us can say where we shall be 10, 20 or 30 years ahead. Who can say what the trade patterns will be?
As everyone knows, handling of imports and exports has changed dramatically and substantially over the past 40 years. Much of the Clyde traffic 40 years ago was handled by port authority workers who carried much of the cargo on their broad shoulders. Today, with containerisation, bulk cargo handling and the shift of trade from north America towards Europe, the Clyde port authority has been faced with substantial changes in work practice, a massive reduction in the labour force and a huge drop in the traffic to and from north America.
The container terminal was constructed, as I said on Second Reading, on the site of Princes pier at Greenock and received its first ship on 15 March 1969. The terminal, with its depth of 42 ft. at low tide, with a back-up area of 42 acres and with rail connections to the major industrial centres of the United Kingdom, had by 1973 attracted 13 shipping lines. Sadly, events overtook the north Atlantic trade and the container terminal ran into difficult times, and it is still experiencing difficulties. At the same time, there has been a substantial change in the old smokestack-related heavy industries throughout Scotland, which led to a major drop in the volume of trade involving the port and the authority. In addition, with the reduction in oil imports—because we have our own oil off the north-east coast—there has been a substantial drop, in the Clyde and other ports, in the trade in imported oil.
The Clyde is in competition with other ports throughout the United Kingdom and Europe, including Leith and Grangemouth in Scotland. Unless the Clyde can change to meet the changes in the marketplace, and unless the port authority has the flexibility and ability to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, it is clear that it will not be able to compete effectively with other ports in the United Kingdom and Europe.
Like other hon. Members, I am worried about Hunterston, which handles 50 per cent. of the Clyde port authority's traffic, representing 43 per cent. of the authority's revenue. We all know that the well-being and future of Hunterston are very much tied up with the well-being and future of Ravenscraig. We all know that many questions need to be asked and many have not yet been answered. We in Scotland want to know the answers. We shall have opportunities in our different ways to obtain some. Unless we can get some answers, Hunterston's future will have question marks over it. That cannot give any delight to anyone other than those who do not want the Scottish economy to do well. The deep-water port at Hunterston has great facilities that should be maximised.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman's point about Hunterston is of interest to all of us and particularly to me from a constituency point of view. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that anything in the Clyde port
758
authority's existing powers has contributed over many years, and certainly over the authority's lifetime, to the disappointing underdevelopment of Hunterston?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has an edge on me as a constituency Member. If I put a question to him about the well-being of the whisky industry in my constituency, I think that I should have the edge on him. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment on details, and I should not wish to do so.
My concern as a Scottish Member of Parliament is to ensure that Scottish ports can compete effectively, efficiently and on equal terms with other ports throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. The Bill will give the people who run the authority the opportunity to do just that. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.
8.17 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). He has one characteristic in common with members of his Front Bench—he views with distaste awkwardly honest critics on the Labour Benches as much as he views with loathing honestly awkward critics on the Conservative Benches. Many of us have constituency interests and concerns that we wish to defend with the same vigour with which he defends his constituents who work in the whisky industry. The hon. Gentleman should not forget that.
I think that you were fortunate to miss the earlier exchanges, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I was listening.
Dr. Godman: I meant that it was before you came into the Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I was listening.
Dr. Godman: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly do not wish to cross swords with you.
As you are well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, when Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair we discussed amendments to the Bill which are to be tabled in the other place. I cannot discuss them now because I do not know what they are, but if amendments are made in another place, I shall presumably have the opportunity to scrutinise and discuss them when the Bill comes back. I should like some amendments to be made.
First, I should like clause 4 to be amended so as to require the head office of the Clyde port authority always to be located in Glasgow. The CPA occupies one of the finest buildings in Victorian Glasgow. I have said that to John Mather on a number of occasions, and I believe that he has invited my wife and me to visit the building and examine the architecture.
Mr. Lambie: He will give you lunch.
Dr. Godman: I do not think for one minute that John Mather will give me lunch after what I have to say today, although I may be able to appeal to Sir Robert Easton for a cup of coffee. The head office of the CPA should remain in Glasgow. If it cannot be in Greenock or Port Glasgow, it must be in Glasgow.
Mr. Lambie: My hon. Friend should realise that the main activity of the Clyde port authority is in Cunninghame. Its headquarters should be in Ardrossan and nowhere else.
Dr. Godman: My old and hon. Friend has a point and he has made it in his usual powerful way. But I am trying to be diplomatic. I should like the headquarters to be located in Greenock, but I am perfectly willing to accept that the head office should stay in Robertson street, Glasgow.
I should also like the Bill to be amended to require that the present directors shall not be major shareholders in any successor company.
Clause 4 deals with the duties, liabilities and responsibilities of the authority. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) mentioned Inverclyde district council's position on the Bill, so in fairness I ought to say something about that. I would be the last person to impugn the hon. Gentleman's honour or character, but it seems to me that a deal may have been struck with the Secretary of State for Scotland over the passage of the Bill today and the hon. Gentleman's conduct on the Standing Committee considering the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that that is not so. I have repeated today that I intend to speak and vote against a guillotine on that Bill if a guillotine motion is introduced.
Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is a man of his word. I readily accept what he has said and withdraw my criticism.
As I said, the hon. Gentleman referred to Inverclyde district council. It is only fair that I should mention the fact that today I received a letter from John Thompson, the director of administration for that council. Mr. Thompson wrote:
"The District Council at its meeting yesterday decided not to lodge in the House of Lords a petition objecting to the Bill."
In that regard, the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastwood were accurate. Mr. Thompson continued:
"However, the District Council has resolved to seek the support of the Clydeside MPs in opposition to the Bill."
I can well understand why the council is reluctant to petition in the other place. Like most councils in Scotland, it is strapped for cash and the procedure for presenting a petition of objection to an Opposed Private Bill Committee can be an expensive activity.
Mr. Thompson went on to say:
"As you know, the District Council opposes the Bill on the grounds that its consequences, if enacted, could potentially be of significant detriment to the District."
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made that point in his inimitable way. Mr. Thompson then said:
"In particular, the continuation of the present dredging operations of the River Clyde is extremely important to the economic wellbeing of the whole Clyde area and in particular are of considerable significance to commercial and industrial users of the River. Upon privatisation, it may be the case that a private Company would consider from a commercial view that the dredging operations should be discontinued on the grounds of commercial expediency."
That was what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) suggested in his intervention.
Mr. Thompson went on:
760
"Although at present there is no strict legal obligation imposed on the existing Clyde Port Authority to require the dredging of the River, the Clyde Port Authority does part finance the dredging operations in the wider public interest."
It is right and proper that Mr. Thompson should acknowledge the part played by Clyde port authority at present. His letter continued:
"A privatised Company may decide to take a narrower short term commercial view that the dredging operations are not commercially attractive and discontinue these in the future."
Mr. Thompson made some further criticisms. He said, for example:
"The Bill would emphasise the property development aspects of the privatised Companies rather than the importance of the Clyde for employment, tourism, commerce and industry, leisure and the environment in general. Such an emphasis on property development may result in short term windfall profits being taken outwith the area of the Clyde without any obligation on the part of the shareholders to re-invest in the local area having regard to any consideration of public interest."
That is what I have said all along about clauses 1 to 5. No matter how estimable Sir Robert Easton and John Mather are—I have respect for both gentlemen and for their officials—a predator company based in London, Dusseldorf, Tokyo or New York may come along and sweep them into the Clyde. Would such people have any commitment to the Clyde and its people? I think perhaps not. That is why I want the Bill amended to require the head office always to be located on the Clyde. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South may argue that it should be in Sa1tcoats, but I would settle for Glasgow.
Mr. Sillars: Govan.
Dr. Godman: No. If it is not Glasgow, it has to be Greenock.
Did the hon. Member for Eastwood support the Eurowestport concept put forward by the late John Davidson, formerly director of the CBI in Scotland, who had a vision within which the Clyde port authority had a major role to play? A couple of years ago, in talking about the channel tunnel—I relate my remarks to clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill—he argued the case for Eurowestport:
"The Channel Tunnel will be in operation in seven years. The west of Scotland will be then connected, without transshipment break, to the European transport network—a potential advantage we have never enjoyed before. It is that absence of any need for transshipment that alters so dramatically the situation.
The scale of port developments on the European continent has been a major feature of development in the past quarter century. They have established an enviable reputation for economic, uninterrupted service. But it surely ought to be possible to break that mould by detailed forward planning, a positive approach and determined marketing. We must not accept that others have a prescriptive right to the advantages."
Mr. Allan Stewart: The late John Davidson was my successor as director of the Scottish CBI. I thought a great deal about his proposal.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's graceful intervention about the late John Davidson.
I quoted the late John Davidson because, with regard to clause 4 of this Bill, in the light of his comments about the Eurowestport concept and the traditional maritime activities carried out on the Clyde, it is essential that the

761
CPA retains more than just a foothold in those industrial maritime activities. The CPA should not become a property company.
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping is listening to me in his usual attentive way. On Thursday 29 March I asked him to give us the names of the chairman, chief executive and directors of the CPA. One or two of those gentlemen have been mentioned. Needless to say, there are no women on the board. I wonder whether there will be women on future boards.
Mr. Lamble: What about friends of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)?
Dr. Godman: I am not sure whether Tommy O'Connor of the Transport and General Workers Union would want to find himself in such company. In addition to Tommy O'Connor and the then councillor Lawrence McGarry, one of the board members will be the managing director of Scottish Metropolitan Property plc. I wonder what ideas that CPA director has about property developments along the Clyde.
I do not want to speak for much longer because other hon. Members wish to speak. However, I want to consider dredging. It has been readily conceded by John Mather, chief executive of the CPA, by Bob Easton and by others that dredging is a major and vital task. We know that the costs of the dredging are disputed. When the Norwegian company Kvaerner sought to acquire the shipyard in the constituency of the hon. Member for Govan it was unhappy about its responsibility for meeting a share of the dredging costs. Clause 4 (3) refers to the port authority's obligation in relation to the dredging operation.
The other day I saw the dredger in the middle of the river, not far from Lymebank. By any standards she is an ancient vessel, long past her prime, and she needs to be replaced.
Mr. Worthington: That is no way to talk about a lady.
Dr. Godman: I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), says and I suspect that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), might say the same thing.
Mr. Greg Knight: Do not bring me into it.
Dr. Godman: The dredger is an ancient vessel. She does a fair turn of work, but she needs replacing. I estimate that, to do that job effectively, a new vessel will cost upwards of £12 million. I would like to see such a vessel built on the Clyde.
Mr. Lambie: Well, in Port Glasgow.
Dr. Godman: Where else but at Kvaerner Ferguson of Port Glasgow? The Norwegians are moving in everywhere.
The new company that will be formed if the Bill is enacted will have to find the wherewithal to replace the dredger if the company is to continue the dredging operation. In addition to that capital outlay, over the past two or three years the CPA's annual dredging costs have been in excess of £600,000. In terms of the liability under clause 4, I believe that some assistance is given to the CPA by the Strathclyde regional council, Glasgow district council, Kvaerner of Govan and Yarrow.
762
While I respect the people who run the CPA's trust board, in terms of clause 4(3) I have tried to change section 16 of the Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act 1965 which reads:
"The Port Authority may from time to time deepen, dredge, scour and improve the bed and foreshore of the river and Firth of Clyde".
I have tried to change that power to a duty so that section 16 of the 1965 Act would read:
"The Port Authority shall from time to time".
I have sought to do that through a new clause that 1 have tabled to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill because I am given to understand that nothing in this Bill abrogates the provisions of the 1965 Act. Does the Minister wish to intervene?
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)indicated dissent.
Dr. Godman: I thought that the Minister might tell me that I was wrong about that. If I am right, I have every right to table a new clause to a miscellaneous provisions Bill so as to change the 1965 Act. There may be a technicality with which I am not familiar, but I hope that I can change a power to a duty.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North referred to the container terminal. He was right to say that in terms of activity and vessel turn-around the terminal is a shadow of its former self. Nevertheless, there is work there. Ships are coming into the terminal. It is one of our finest deep port facilities—about 42 feet.
If the Bill is successful, the container terminal should continue as a container terminal and the land should not be regarded as a site for executive-style housing in landscaped gardens. Again referring to the late John Davidson's concept of Eurowestport, it is essential to retain that container terminal not only for the people of Greenock and Port Glasgow who work there but for the maritime link to what I hope will one day be a dedicated high-speed link through the channel tunnel and be connected with the European railway network.
Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. Is he reassured by the fact that the Clyde port authority is investing about £1 million in the terminal for new storage and so on? There will be a real commitment.
Dr. Godman: Yes, indeed. I have seen the facilities. Not long ago, I talked to Phil Cannie and the other ex-dockers who have formed the company which rents the terminal from the CPA. I urged on them a workers' co-operative, but they settled for a private company.
I am concerned that the Clyde port authority will be regarded as a juicy financial morsel by some predator company that has no commitment to Scotland, let alone to the Clyde and the Firth of Clyde.
I am being an awkward customer with this Bill because of my constituency and Clyde-wide interests. In addition to the container terminal, the James Watt dock is in my constituency. Vessels that carry raw cane sugar from the African Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar producing countries are unloaded. There are only two such refineries left in the United Kingdom now—one on the Thames in London and one on the lower Clyde. About 300 of my constituents work in the Tate and Lyle cane sugar refinery. Apart from providing work for constituents, the House of Commons should honour its obligation, under the Lomé sugar protocol, to impoverished countries which produce

763
that crop. In addition, in my constituency there is a ship repair firm which, I am pleased to say, employs 80 men. Its managing director, Mr. Sinclair, wrote to me the other day after he saw my interview with Miss Margo McDonald on Scottish Television. He expressed his serious concern for the future of the James Watt complex.
Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will be aware also that constituents who work in the Caledonian MacBrayne shipping company are concerned about what is happening on the Clyde.
Dr. Godman>: They are indeed. That concern extends along the river and the Firth. Many of those who work around the constituencies of Greenock, Port Glasgow, Inverclyde and Renfrew have some trust in the CPA as it is currently formed, but they are deeply worried about the future ownership of the Clyde port authority and where its head office will be located in 10 years time. If it is to be located in Robertson street in Glasgow and the container terminal is still to receive investment from the Clyde port authority, I shall be a much happier man. However, I have my doubts about the implications for my constituents and many other people and, as one who is directly affected by the Bill, despite the hon. Gentleman's assurances, I shall urge hon. Members to vote against the Bill.
8.45 pm
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It might be convenient if I said a few words about the Government's position on the Bill. On Second Reading on 14 May I clearly stated the Government's position.
Mr. Wilson: The slight bombshell that the Minister dropped on Second Reading was the fact that the Treasury is to run off with 50 per cent. of the slack and that that would apply to all port privatisations. A report in Lloyd's List last week suggests that, under an amendment to the Finance Bill, the Treasury would not only take 50 per cent. but would then impose a corporation tax of 35 per cent. on the remaining 50 per cent., and that there would then be a further cascading of corporation tax, which could mean that the Government could claw back a still greater proportion of the total revenue. I understand that amendments to the Finance Bill have been reintroduced. As the matter is of substantial significance to any port authority that is thinking of privatising itself, will the Minister clarify the Government's position? If he cannot do so tonight, will he write to me?
Mr. McLoughlin: The position remains as I stated it on Second Reading. As, in the past, the Government put various moneys into trust boards, it is felt right that a proportion should go to the Government. On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, it would be better if I looked again at the report in Lloyd's List and wrote to him with further clarification. That issue will be debated later this evening and when the Finance Bill returns to the House. That may be the best time to clarify the Government's position.
The Bill has come back to the House without any amendments. It has my support, so I hope that it has the support of all hon. Members.
8.47 pm
Mr. Jim Sillars: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) will correct me if I am wrong about the structure of the new authority and holding company. As I understand it, the successor company will be the functional arm of the holding company carrying out the functions of a port authority. The holding company will be the entrepreneurial, bustling, dynamic business organisation that will capitalise upon assets that are currently held by the Clyde port authority. Hon. Members cannot object to joint ventures between public authorities and private capital to develop ports in Glasgow or in any other part of Scotland. The Scottish Development Agency has engaged in that practice, Glasgow district council has encouraged it, and Strathclyde regional council also encourages it.
However, I fail to understand why we do not have a Bill to extend the powers of the present Clyde port authority to engage in joint ventures with private enterprise partners, and why it is necessary to go all the way to a private shareholding company, which is the holding company. For the life of me I cannot accept that someone has his eye on the massive asset stripping of the Clyde port authority's substantial holdings. The Clyde will by no means be a dead river, and certainly not on the banks where there is considerable development. Some people have great visions of capitalising on the assets on the north and south banks of the river. I share the anxieties of Opposition Members about the preparations that are taking place for massive asset stripping.
I have registered my concern about dredging. I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastwood was trying to mislead us when he said that there was no obligation on the successor company to dredge the Clyde. Clause 4 says that there will be transferred from the present port authority to the successor company
"all the property (whether heritable or moveable) of the Port Authority, and to all rights liabilities and obligations of the Port Authority".
What is the obligation if it is not dredging? The explanatory statement from the Bill's promoters suggests that the obligation rests upon the general duty of the port authority, expressed in section 13 of the 1965 Act, to take such steps from time to time as it may consider necessary for the maintenance or improvement of the port and the accommodation and facilities afforded therein or in connection therewith.
The crucial term in that obligation is not "general duty" but "port". What will be the future legal definition of a port? Not long ago such a definition would have been easy on the Clyde because from almost one end to the other it was a series of ports and it could have been said that the whole of the Clyde was a single port. However, that will not necessarily be the case in future because there has been a devastating reduction in commercial and industrial activity on the Clyde. I do not doubt that a container terminal would still be defined as a port and the same definition could be applied to the James Watt dock. But could the definition of a port be applied to the Kvaerner shipyard in Govan? It is a separate undertaking and a private enterprise company. It certainly relies upon the river, but it could not be argued that it relies upon a port.
I am worried about what may happen if we become involved in litigation. Clause 5 makes it ultra vires for the successor company to act beyond not the responsibilities or obligations of the Clyde port authority, but the present

765
power of that authority. It does not impose any responsibilities or obligations. We are talking about the holding company being transferred to shareholders who are concerned solely with maximising profit irrespective of the effects of any of their policies on the Clyde or its immediate environs in Glasgow or the Greenock area. Some people and organisations would protest if it was decided to stop dredging the Clyde. If the matter went to court, there would be no point in quoting the words in Hansard of the hon. Member for Eastwood because it is a rule of the courts in Scotland and England that Hansard cannot be used as guidance to the meaning of an Act.
Dr. Godman: Some of my constituents genuinely believe that the Clyde port authority does not own waterfront properties in Greenock. They argue their case on the basis of a few contracts signed in 1772 in Edinburgh, which gave to the people of Greenock in perpetuity that area of the waterfront.
Mr. Sillars: I foresee litigation arising and it will make the Court of Session interesting. [Interruption.] If the Bill becomes an Act and a case comes to the Court of Session, the judges will be compelled to interpret the Act. The hon. Member for Eastwood says that he expects the Clyde port authority to continue dredging. He should look again at the explanatory memorandum. It says that the successor company would succeed to the property rights and liabilities of the port authority. Clause 5 is about power only and has nothing to do with rights and liabilities, and it is arguable whether dredging is a legal, contractual liability on the Clyde port authority. If the hon. Gentleman says that it is not an obligation, it lies somewhere in the realm of ambiguity. If a case went to the Court of Session, the judge would say that if Parliament meant the authority to have a specific obligation, it would have written it into the Act. If Parliament does not do that, the matter will be debatable and a judge could well come down against the argument that the authority has a responsibility, a liability and an obligation.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. The duties and powers of the authority are laid down in section 13(3) of the 1965 Act and the successor company takes over those duties and powers.
Mr. Sillars: The authority has the power to dredge the Clyde but, as the hon. Gentleman says, it does not have a legal obligation to do so. If we went to the Court of Session to try to stop the authority dredging the Clyde, it would win the case because it has the power. However, if we went to the Court of Session to make it dredge the Clyde, we should be engaged in an entirely different legal argument.
Mr. Bill Walker: In order to help us follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, can he tell us of any other river in the United Kingdom where an authority or a private company has a statutory obligation to dredge the river?
Mr. Sillars: I do not know of any cases that have been tested in the Court of Session and that is what worries me. We have a responsibility to make sure that legislation is absolutely clear and that liabilities and responsibilities are clearly defined in the Act.
Mr. Worthington: All dredging operations in the former inner harbour on the Clyde between Victoria and Glasgow
766
bridges ceased about a quarter of a century ago. I assume that at some stage that was defined as part of the port, that it is no longer so defined and that if it is possible for the port authority to walk away from the inner harbour, it is possible for it to walk away from anywhere.
Mr. Sillars: I am worried that it is possible for the authority to walk away from the part of the Clyde that serves the important shipyard of Kvaerner and its substantial work force. For the life of me, I cannot understand why those who are arguing for the Bill are not prepared to say that they would advise the promoters, when the Bill goes to the other place, to remove any doubt whatever about the obligations of the successor company.
Having registered my anxiety on that matter, my final point is about the public benefit. I accept that the chairman cannot get free shares and that the hon. Member for Eastwood told us that free shares will be available to the employees. I have never understood the logic of that. I could never understand why, if one happens to be lucky enough to work for the gas board or the Clyde port authority at a certain time, one receives a bonus benefit, whereas if one is unlucky enough because of the labour market not to work for such a company one is denied that benefit. Also someone who worked for such a company but who has left or retired is denied that benefit.
I am worried that the local authorities will not benefit from the privatisation. The local authorities should have what is known in the oil industry as a carried interest, a set number of shares in a company that would become revenue earning. My argument is that if there are developments along the banks of the Clyde both north and south, such as housing and various other developments, the local authorities will be called on to provide a range of services that will add to their financial burden. Therefore, if anyone is to be cut in on free shares, there is a clear case for giving them to local authorities up and down the Clyde. At least in that way they would get something out of the asset stripping of public assets that I fear is inherent in the Bill.
Like the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, I hope that there will be amendments in another place to tighten the Bill and produce a better balance in the public interest. That balance in the public interest is missing, so I shall join others in the Lobby in voting against Third Reading.
9 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I shall make only a brief speech.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) get so worked up about dredging. Of course, dredging is important. That is why the Labour Government in 1969 wrote into the legislation that the Clyde port authority had a duty—I emphasise duty—to take such steps as from time to time
"they may consider necessary for the maintenance or improvement of the Port".
One cannot run a port unless from time to time dredging, if it is necessary, is carried out. That duty is carried over from the 1965 legislation into the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen are trying to race a hare that is a non-runner. The powers in the Bill are exactly the same as those in the current legislation. If dredging is required, the authority will have the right to carry it out.

767
The attitude of Opposition Members is disappointing. They believe that to continue as we are will help the Clyde port authority to run an efficient port. It is obvious that times have changed dramatically since 1965 and the port needs a great deal of support to go into new ventures to maintain its income with which to enhance the port and the community that it represents. One needs only to consider the market decline in trade on the west coast and the move towards the east coast, the restrictive powers in the Act and the way in which heavy engineering has disappeared. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow knows better than anyone how things have changed in his constituency and that the Clyde port authority must find new ways of developing the port.
New technology that has come into the west of Scotland does not require the same type of shipping as heavy engineering did years ago. We have also lost the oil shipments from the middle east because of north sea oil, which is welcome. Also imports of grain previously came into the west coast of Scotland from Canada and the United States, not only for whisky distilling but for agriculture. Cereals were imported for feedstuffs. Containerisation has moved to the south and east of the United Kingdom rather than develop on the west coast.
In simple terms, the authority is asking us to give it much greater flexibility to give it the powers to develop the port in the way that it feels necessary. It has had general support from a wide range of people who know what they are talking about. The main opposition to the Bill has come from Opposition Members who seem determined to prevent the port from developing and to drift on into stagnation.
Mr. Sillars: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has listened to what Opposition Members have said. We recognise the potential benefits of a joint venture and we have argued that it should take place, but why is it necessary to have a wholly privatised Clyde port holding company? Why cannot the present authority have its powers extended so that it can go into a joint venture? What would be wrong with that? That would comply with the development of the Clyde, and we are all in favour of that.
Sir Hector Monro: If obtaining finance and venture capital were as simple as the hon. Gentleman seems to think, no doubt the port authority would have gone down that road. In fact, the authority needs wider powers to deal with what it thinks is the best way forward in developing the Clyde.
I am not sure whether Opposition Members have mentioned responsibilities for lights, buoys and recreation facilities. I am sure that many of us have sailed on the Clyde. In war time, I operated upon it and came to know it reasonably well. There is still a great future for developing recreation on the Clyde, but the port authority needs additional powers. There is the need also to remove any questions of doubt, and that the authority has raised with us from time to time.
The hon. Member for Govan has referred to the narrow issue of venture capital. It would be a pity to lose the opportunity that is presented by a much wider approach to the development of the Clyde because of the opposition of Opposition Members. The port authority has given close
768
attention to the possibilities and opportunities that are available to it and it will proceed with confidence, provided that the Bill is passed, to develop the Clyde in the best interests of Scotland as a whole but particularly of the west coast and the Firth of Clyde.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Is it not also relevant to the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing that the board of the port authority, which was unanimous in bringing forward the proposals, includes the former councillor, Lawrence McGarry, who was chairman of the economic development committee of Strathclyde regional council?
Sir Hector Monro: That adds force to the support that should be given to the Bill. I understand that the trade unions are enthusiastic that the Bill should proceed.
I have always believed, as does the regional council in my constituency, that economic development committees are constructive and submit positive ideas to enhance the regions in which they operate. That, of course, must take place in conjunction with the Scottish Development Agency, enterprise trusts and the Scottish Industry Department. All these organisations seem keen to go forward together to support the port authority's initiative, and I cannot understand why Opposition Members are so antagonistic to it. We should speak out for Scotland and for the Clyde and give the Bill every encouragement.
9.9 pm
Mr. David Lambie: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate. I spoke on Second Reading and voted in the Noes Lobby. Since then I have not heard any arguments which have persuaded me to change my mind, so I shall vote against Third Reading.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is being unfair to Opposition Members, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has said. We have been speaking for Scotland in general and for the Clyde in particular. Our only interest in the proposals set out in the Bill is that we consider that the Bill does not speak up, as it were, for Scotland, and especially for the Clyde.>
The sixth paragraph of the statement issued by the promoters in support of Third Reading states:
"The Port Authority would wish their business to have a commercial freedom beyond the severely restricted scope of the present powers of the Port Authority. The aim of the Bill is therefore to free the conduct of the Port Authority's business from the restrictions arising from their present limited powers."
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) outlined a series of restrictions and I intervened to remind him that the main function of the port authority was that of a port and harbour authority. He had not given one example of a restriction that affected the port and harbour activities of the port authority. He gave us a lot of restrictions that could be suffered by property and commercial developments if the Clyde port authority constitution is not changed.
In common with other Opposition Members, I realise that things change on a river. Former assets may become liabilities for ports and harbours, but similarly those assets may be attractive as potential property and commercial developments. I appreciate that, given the changes over the years, there must be a restructuring of the Clyde port authority to enable it to sell its assets to realise money to develop its port and harbour facilities. Opposition

769
Members are afraid that those assets will be stripped by the Clyde port holding company and will be used not for the benefit of the remainder of the Clyde port authority, but for the benefit of that company's directors and shareholders.
I laughed when the hon. Member for Eastwood read the comments made by a colleague and political friend, Tom O'Connor, in support of the Bill. One of the benefits of being here for a long time is that one can remember people and what they did. My political and trade union colleague, Tom O'Connor, was one of the men who prevented the port of Hunterston opening for six months because of a dispute between the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the steel workers' union, the Clyde port authority and the Transport and General Workers Union. That man now supports the development of the Clyde when he spent a large part of his life restricting such development. I will not take him as my guide.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I should have thought that that meant that Mr. O'Connor's credentials in the Labour movement were fully established. Would the hon. Gentleman care to enlighten the House on his views of Lawrence McGarry?
Mr. Lambie: I am in enough trouble with Strathclyde regional council, and now with the TGWU, without rising to that bait.
I realise that the Clyde port authority has been subject to restrictions for many years, but the major restriction has been withdrawn by the Government. The major restriction on the port's activities was the national dock labour scheme, which prevented it from developing the Clyde as it should have done. That scheme prevented the authority from developing the concept of a Euro-port, a transshipment port for Europe—as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—based on the port of Hunterston. The authority is no longer restricted by that scheme and if it was able to realise its assets from sales on the upper Clyde there would be nothing to stop it, even under the present set-up, from developing a major port on the Clyde.
Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the national dock labour scheme was developed to protect registered dock workers from employers who were, in many instances, rapacious?
Mr. Lambie: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the reasons for its establishment, but I am talking about the effects that that scheme had, until last year, on developments on the Clyde.
I accept that there is a need for reorganisation. As we have been told, the Clyde port authority has three constituent parts—the upper Clyde, the lower Clyde, and the firth of Clyde, with the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan. The port and harbour facilities at upper Clyde are finished. Those are the assets that are to be sold. The upper port is important for its shipbuilding assets, of which the hon. Member for Govan spoke. I may get into trouble with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow by saying that, at the end of the day, maybe even Greenock and Port Glasgow are finished and the full and future development of the Clyde should be in the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan, especially Hunterston.
Dr. GodmanIn Greenock, we have Kvaerner Kincaid, which produces the engines for the vessels built at Kvaerner Govan in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). Kincaid employs more than 500 people and Ferguson builds vessels for Caledonian MacBrayne. Greenock and Port Glasgow are far from finished.
Mr. Lambie: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but I am talking about port and harbour facilities. He is talking about manufacturing and shipbuilding facilities, which I hope will continue because a number of my constituents work in those industries.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he knows, I was trying to intervene a few minutes ago, but I did not want to interrupt his flow.
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said about the dock labour scheme. My memory may be defective, but I do not recall him voting for the Government measure to abolish it.
Mr. Lambie: Sometimes one has to follow the party Whip. In the end, I voted as I did because of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. In the 1940s and 1950s, following the bad history of how the dockers and their families were exploited by the dock owners, there was a need for the scheme, but in the end it became a restriction on the activities of the Clyde port authority.
I am sorry that the Minister spoke so early. I thought that he would have taken the opportunity to speak at the end of the debate to answer the points made in it. If, as have been told, the Government are enforcing a Whip on the Bill, the Minister should have the courage to defend the Bill against the arguments that have come mainly from the Opposition.
Recently, in the Scottish press and media, there have been stories that Sir Robert Scholey—my old friend "Black Bob" Scholey—is interested in building an electric power station at Hunterston to develop it as a major coal port, using the coal to generate electricity in an area earmarked for a new steel mill. I know that it is difficult if it is not in the Minister's brief, but I hope that he will intervene to inform the House whether a Scottish Minister or himself, as Minister with responsibility for ports, has taken part in the plans that we are told have been put forward by British Steel to develop the port of Hunterston, a major part of the Clyde port authority.
In the port of Hunterston there are two direct reduction plants, built by British Steel, which were mothballed the day they were finished. If the Bill is enacted, will it mean that the steel developments for which we are hoping at Hunterston will be stopped because a private company will not be interested in a steel industry for Scotland or that industry's future? Will the Minister inform the House whether the Government are taking part in such negotiations, and can he confirm the statements that have been published in the Scottish press?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to range widely, but I must remind him that we are debating Third Reading, which is extremely narrow, and that he can refer only to what is in the Bill at present.
Mr. Lambie: I am trying to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to know whether the Clyde port authority will be obliged to continue with steel and other

771
developments at Hunterston when the Bill becomes an Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and I are interested in the future of the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan, as they are the only real sources of revenue for the Clyde port authority—excluding asset sales.
I hope that the Minister will intervene to inform the House whether, if British Steel intends to build an electricity-generating station at the port of Hunterston, it will be prevented from doing so if that interferes with the steel-making capacity that we hope will be built at Hunterston.
The Bill will be bad for the future of the Clyde and it will be bad for the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan. That is why I shall vote against Third Reading.
9.21 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: It is unfortunate that the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), did not mention the amendments which it was agreed were necessary to the Bill, and which should have been discussed in Committee. The amendments are not enormously important, but they are significant for the future development of the Bill. The reason why we have not heard about them is that the promoters of the Bill want to avoid a Report stage and to accelerate proceedings on the Bill. That sort of manoeuvre causes a loss of trust.
It was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Eastwood that the Bill is not necessary in this form. All Opposition Members believe that the port authorities are unsatisfactory at present. There is something questionable about a body when its owners and who it is accountable to are unknown. To say that the port authority needs amending powers is not the same as saying that it needs the Bill.
One of the disappointing aspects of tonight's debate is the fact that no one has considered the structure of the proposed company, and I shall do so later. There is confusion about the Clyde port authority, and it should be cleared up. The authority has been cosy and unexamined since the 1965 order. It is controlled by the CPA board, which is wholly appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, who claims that he is not responsible for its activities—which I find questionable.
As far as we can tell, the chairman of the board receives £10,000 a year and each of its members £3,500 a year. Appointment to the board involves an important element of trust. The word "trust" keeps cropping up. It is a trust port, and the idea is to have some sort of mandate to safeguard the Clyde on behalf of the people. That means, for example, that the board, quite rightly, is dominated by people who have a central interest in the Clyde. It includes the managing director of Yarrow, the chief executive of Caledonian MacBrayne, a Bank of Scotland representative, a representative of a major property company and representatives from trade unions. Local authorities are represented, but they are not really represented. They are represented in the sense that it would be wrong if their representatives were not on the board, but they are there in a personal capacity, not mandated by the local authorities.
772
The managing directors of Yarrow and Caledonian MacBrayne would not dream of using their position in that trust port to benefit their companies. It would be unethical to use their position on the board of the Clyde port authority to their personal advantage or to the advantage of their companies. If they were to do so, the whole basis of that trust would break down.
When a new board is established but it keeps the members of the previous board and changes from a trust to a profit-making organisation, we must question the future relationship. It goes back to ownership. In this case, quite clearly the ownership is being transferred to the private sector. The Clyde port authority believes that the Government do not own it, and its chief executive said:
"If so, why should it share in the proceeds?"
Why should the Government share in the proceeds? That legitimately raises the question, why should anyone share in the proceeds? That must be justified in how the resources of the port authority are shared.
The chief executive said—and I hope that the press is correct:
"The board has only God above it."
That is a profound statement that raises serious questions about responsibility and accountability.
All Opposition Members accept that there should be reforms and increased accountability, but there should not be an automatic right of succession to a new company. Those who were appointed to the board of the port authority in trust should not have an automatic right of succession to the new company.
This privatisation is unlike any other. If it were the privatisation of gas, water, electricity or British Steel—which we regret—it would be under the supervision of the Government, who would then market the shares at a certain price. There would be an open door for those shares.
Mr. Sillars: The distinction is that, with the gas privatisation, the new company had to have a memorandum and articles of association that laid down clearly its purposes and objectives. Here we are asked to endorse the setting up of a private company whose memorandum and articles of association, and therefore its purposes and objectives, we know nothing about.
Mr. Worthington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is highly unsatisfactory that we have no details about the successor company when we could be given those details because the people who will decide about the future company are the board members of the Clyde port authority—no one else, because no one else can get in. Three bodies are to be set up—the Clyde port trust, the successor company, and the holding company. The Clyde port trust will extinguish itself. It will be in existence for only a while in order to set up the successor company and the holding company. The Bill says:
"The Trust shall consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman, and not less than eight nor more than eleven other members."
These people will be the chairman, deputy chairman and other members of the port authority, who shall become the chairman, deputy chairman and other members of the trust. This body will set up the successor company and will dispose of the securities of the holding company.
The hon. Member for Eastwood challenged me about my statement that the employee share ownership scheme applied only to the non-executive directors of the port authority. I was drawing his attention to another clause,

773
which allows the securities to be distributed as the port trust wishes. Who has ever heard of a company in which the workers got shares but the directors did not? That would be a first. I am willing to withdraw all that I have said on this issue if the hon. Member will assure me that none of the non-executive directors, who are appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, will benefit from privatisation.
Mr. Allan Stewart: If the general public are allowed to take up shares in the new holding company, then the directors, or the hon. Gentleman, or I, or anybody else, could apply for shares. The point is that the interest-free loan for shares is limited solely to employees or past employees of the company, so that that includes the executive directors, who are employees, but not the non-executive directors.
Mr. Worthington: That was not the assurance that I was seeking, but it takes me on to another point. The hon. Member is implying that shares in this company will be issued on the basis of a public issue of shares. We know nothing about this. He said that it would be open to me, on my humble income, to apply for shares alongside all other members of the public and to be allocated shares. Will there be a public issue of shares or will shares be issued by invitation?
Mr. Allan Stewart: That is a possibility. The board made it quite clear that it wanted to place shares with Scottish financial institutions. That is its preference.
Mr. Worthington: That is why we should be examining the Bill. Apart from a press release which was produced in about November containing a stated wish that the shares should be placed with Scottish financial institutions, I was not aware that there had been any commitment about who would get the shares or in what form. No details whatsoever have been issued about how the company is to be launched, but it is now quite clear that it will not be a public issue of shares with a listing on the Stock Exchange. There has been no attempt at that, but in some mystical way the company will be launched and people will be given the opportunity to have shares.
Dr. Godman: With regard to the non-executive directors of the present board, let me point out to my hon. Friend that there is no representative from Strathclyde regional council.
Mr. Worthington: That is correct. There never was a representative of Strathclyde regional council in a formal sense; there was a person who also happened to be a councillor on Strathclyde regional council.
Dr. Godman: Is it not the case that, when the Secretary of State makes appointments to quangos, nominations are requested from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, for example, and the local councils?
Mr. Worthington: No doubt the Department of Transport constructs such boards in a way similar to the way in which the Scottish Office constructs the boards for quangos under its control. However, I want to stick with my principal point.
If we give the Bill a Third Reading today, we shall be giving a blank cheque to a number of nominees of the Secretary of State for Transport to set up the successor company in whatever form they want. It may or may not
774
benefit them, but it will not have to be in a detailed form approved by the House. We have an extremely vague Bill. We could have been given much more detail because the people who will shape the Clyde board trust, the holding company and the successor company are all in post in the Clyde port authority. Only they will be able to determine the shape of the new company.
The Bill is of considerable importance to the west of Scotland. The Opposition are disappointed that there has been so little interest in an issue of such importance to the future of the Clyde area. The Clyde has considerable symbolism. The port has economic, leisure and general social importance to the health of the area. Those who are in control of the Clyde must be checked to ensure that their interest in the Clyde and the people of the west of Scotland is central. If we give the Bill a Third Reading tonight, there will be no restrictions on who may own the companies and develop them in future.
There has been much reference to dredging. Through the process of debate we have clarified that issue. We now have a different answer from the first answer we received from the hon. Member for Eastwood. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) asked him whether the successor company would be responsible for dredging the river, the hon. Member for Eastwood replied that that was a fair question and that the answer was yes. The answer is not yes; the answer is maybe. The existing legislation allows the port authority to withdraw from dredging, and it will allow the future company to do so. Labour Members are concerned that because the authority will be privatised a commercial judgment will be made about whether it is profitable to dredge the Clyde. There are far more profitable activities for the successor company than to dredge the Clyde; that is a cost, not a profit-making exercise.
The regional council, the port authority and others commissioned studies which showed that the withdrawal of dredging would have consequences such as flooding and restricting access up the Clyde. An article on the consequences of global warming for the Clyde appeared in Scotland on Sunday on 10 June. There are many low-lying areas—Langhank on one side and Bowling on the other, which has the holding tanks for oil—where the consequences of flooding would be considerable.
A major port, its drainage, sewage and general environment, is much better controlled by a body that has as its central interest the welfare of the people of the area rather than by a private company, just for the time being and only if it is profitable. That is why I shall oppose the Bill.
9.41 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: To a large extent, today's debate has been a re-run of the Second Reading debate, without much more light being shed, certainly by the sponsor of the Bill.
We have had one or two additions. We were pleased to see the occasional presence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, anxiously surveying his disparate little flock like the good shepherd to ensure that they are in good working order and all present and correct. We heard the same speech in three different forms from Scottish Conservative Members, which is possibly better than having no speech from the Minister.

775
To a large extent, we are being asked to accept the Bill without the case being spelt out meaningfully by the Government, who later will whip in sufficient Members to see the Bill over this hurdle.
It is important to spell out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has been doing so eloquently and on the basis of much research and knowledge, the fact that we are not considering a trivial measure or some matter peripheral to the Scottish economy. We are debating a Bill which will convert a public body which is a trust—a word that should have a rather special meaning—in name if not in nature, with assets worth £53 million, into a private company. In any other age, and under any other Government, that would be a remarkable piece of effrontery and a remarkable achievement for those involved in converting into private property assets that they have certainly not created or earned. That is what is being done, and outside the House there are names for such practices.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman associate himself 100 per cent. with the remarks in the press release of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), to which I referred earlier?
Mr. Wilson: I am capable of making my own remarks.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the debate has been the unlikely sanctification by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) of Mr. Tom O'Connor and Mr. Lawrence McGarry—gentlemen whom I have not in the past heard the hon. Gentleman speak of in terms of admiration. In opening his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to repeat at length the arguments made on Second Reading. That would have been difficult, as he did not make them at length then. I suppose that the only relief today was that he did not quote Harry Lauder to flesh out his remarks as he did on Second Reading.
Mr. Stewart rose—
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman may wish to remedy that now, but I do not have time for such diversions.
Questions are unanswered. Why is the Bill needed? Why do we need a private company? If there are powers which are not at present beyond the reach of the Clyde port authority, why cannot those powers be obtained through legislation while maintaining the existing framework? By legislating in this way, we do not create a pot of gold or a private company out of public assets. That is why the Bill is being pursued.
I welcome the relatively benign presence of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Another curiosity that I have noticed in the past few minutes has been the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) flitting around the Chamber, advising all whose ear he can catch about how to proceed in the closing stages of the debate. That is exactly the kind of grubby measure in which one would expect the hon. Gentleman to be actively involved. It is certainly not the wellbeing of Clydeside communities that has motivated him to be with us at this hour.
All the examples quoted by the hon. Member for Eastwood in terms of the alleged need for the extended powers of the newly privatised company relate to speculative development—not the functions of a river authority. Labour Members accept that there are
776
occasions when development should take place and when partnership between the public and the private sector is desirable, but we certainly do not accept that it is beyond the wit of the existing authority to enter into such relationships to achieve specific ends. We do not believe, however, that it is self-evidently true that a harbour authority should take unto itself powers which put it, as a private company, in a position of what might be regarded as unreasonable strength, with the advantage over all other developments.
The example quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) is relevant. We have public bodies and private developers advancing supermarket and commercial development schemes in Renfrewshire—exactly the kind of developments to which the hon. Member for Eastwood referred. The Clyde port authority, because of its advantageous position as a holder of the riverside sites, will cut across everything else being done. By gaining access to these sites as a public body, it will take unto itself power to override the wider planning considerations of Renfrewshire. I can well understand the fury with which that proposal has been received by local authorities—which, presumably, the hon. Member for Eastwood would regard as wicked, anachronistic institutions—and by private sector developments which are intensively involved in these developments. The Clyde port authority has ridden roughshod over them in the deal that has been struck with the Scottish Office over the Braehead development.
Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that comment. I specifically said that Renfrew district council, which is controlled by the Labour party, the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and I see eye to eye.
Mr. Wilson: In his guise as a reasonable man—I am familiar with that guise and have been known to value it at times—the hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said how often he finds himself agreeing with Renfrew district council and, by association, what a fine bunch of chaps they are. What he has not told us is why, on this specific issue, he finds himself in direct conflict with Renfrew district council and why he is sponsoring a Bill which runs directly contrary to the interests and wishes of that council. I do not see the hon. Gentleman rushing to intervene at this stage.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman alleged that I was making a blanket condemnation of Renfrew district council. That is simply not the case. Of course there are issues on which I disagree with Renfrew district council—but not all the time.
Mr. Wilson: No, but this is such an issue, and we note that the grounds for the disagreement have not been explained.
Inverclyde district council said in its letter to Opposition Members:
"The Bill would emphasise the property development aspects of the privatised Companies rather than the importance of the Clyde for employment, tourism, commerce and industry, leisure and the environment in general. Such an emphasis on property development may result in short term windfall profits being taken outwith the area of the Clyde without any obligation on the part of the shareholders to re-invest in the local area having regard to any consideration of public interest."

777
That, in a nutshell, is one of our objections to the Bill: the Clyde port authority will become primarily and overwhelmingly a property development company, to the exclusion—certainly the subordination—of marine interests.
Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend is aware that it took us years and years to make plans for the old factory site at Linwood, where we had lost 9,000 jobs. We were going to build warehouses, factories, retail outlets. Along came Tilbury, and now the plans are in jeopardy as a result of the present scheme.
Mr. Wilson: I well understand the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend expressed, and we note the failure of the hon. Member for Eastwood to reconcile such feelings with his support for the Bill, which will precipitate the Braehead development and others like it.
On dredging, the point has been made well and often that there is a difference between powers and duties. Everyone knows that. Everyone knows that the Clyde port authority has a power to dredge. It exercises that power—indeed, it regards it as a duty. That is what it is in business for. Equally, everyone knows that if we do not write a duty into the constitution of the private authority—which, as I have explained, will have a different role and a different order of priorities, although perhaps not in the immediate future—the power will not necessarily be acted upon. Our concerns on this subject have been added to rather than diminished by the conspicuous refusal of the hon. Member for Eastwood to give any assurances on the matter. All that the hon. Gentleman has incanted and all that the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) have said is that the powers will not change. We all know that the powers will not change, but that means that no duty will be imposed on the new company to carry out dredging.
I share precisely the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the industrial relic that now floats about dredging the Clyde. It is not unreasonable to estimate that £10 million or £12 million worth of capital will be required to renew the vessel which dredges the Clyde. We have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Eastwood about where that capital is to come from when the time comes, as it presumably soon will, to replace the dredging vessel.
We know that, at some future time, the privatised Clyde port authority will say, "There is no duty upon us to dredge the Clyde and it is not economic to do so." The bill will then land up with the local authorities and if the local authorities do not pick up the tab, the Clyde will no longer be dredged, although dredging is vital to its role as a marine thoroughfare. We know that Kvaerner has balked at the contribution that it is asked to make to meet the dredging costs. What will happen if that company refuses to contribute its part of the dredging costs? Is Yarrow's—perhaps by then no longer under Sir Robert Easton—to continue to contribute to the dredging costs? If not, who will pay to dredge the Clyde? That such questions have gone unanswered by the hon. Member for Eastwood is, to say the least, disappointing.
I met an old friend of mine recently, Mr. Finlay McNeil, a distinguished piper and Gaelic singer, who had childhood memories of the area. He was a member of what might be known as the Gaelic diaspora in Greenock. His father served on vessels which had the duty to maintain the
778
lighthouses on the Clyde. He happened to tell me that that function now belongs to the CPA. Is that a power or a duty? What undertakings can the hon. Member for Eastwood give us that the CPA will continue to maintain the lighthouses on the Clyde? If that function is not fulfilled by the CPA, who will fulfil it? I should be pleased if the hon. Member for Eastwood would intervene and reassure me on that point.
The financing of the CPA is, to say the least, dodgy. It is only a few weeks since we heard of the distress in the ranks of the CPA about the prospect of the closure of Ravenscraig. We shall all resist that closure, but if it happens, it will have a drastic effect on the finances of the CPA. Some 50 per cent. of the CPA's profits come from its Hunterston's operations. The Opposition will fight to ensure that Ravenscraig survives, but if through the carelessness of the Government that plant does not survive, what will be the impact on the overall finances of the CPA?
Earlier, I asked the Minister what would happen to a privatised CPA if a report in Lloyd's List is correct and it will not be 50 per cent. of the takings that is seized by the Treasury but corporation tax on that amount, which could mean 65 per cent. or more of the revenue from the privatisation of the CPA being taken by the Treasury. What would happen if the CPA does not, as envisaged, have a healthy capital position at the outset and guaranteed revenue from the activities at Hunterston? What if the CPA loses much of the capital and much of the revenue? None of those questions has been answered. Even more disgracefully, no attempt has been made by the Bill's sponsors to answer them.
It has been the responsibility of Labour Members to lead public opinion on this issue. Over several months my colleagues and I have tried to interest public opinion in Scotland about this matter. We have repeatedly drawn attention to the possible implications for the CPA. I would not be anything other than honest if I did not say that I am disappointed by the response.
We are somewhat inured to such measures if we can allow a public trust with assets of £53 million to be converted into private property without more of a reaction than there has been in Scotland in recent months. I am disappointed that there has been no reaction from Strathclyde region, which is the major local authority with statutory powers involved in the CPA. Many of the district councils have the gravest reservations about the proposal, but in the absence of a lead from the major local authority, they do not feel that they can take a stand on their own, although many have expressed reservations.
It is inexplicable that, while the Transport and General Workers Union opposed the Teesside legislation vigorously, it has taken no such stance over the Clyde—
Mr. Allan Stewart rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 47.

Division No. 274]

[9.58 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Atkins, Robert

Alexander, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Allason, Rupert

Batiste, Spencer

Amess, David

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Arbuthnot, James

Beith, A. J.

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bellingham, Henry

779

Bendall, Vivian

Kirkwood, Archy

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knapman, Roger

Benyon, W.

Knowles, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Boswell, Tim

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Lightbown, David

Bowis, John

Lilley, Peter

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Lord, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Bright, Graham

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Browne, John (Winchester)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Buck, Sir Antony

Maclean, David

Budgen, Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Butterfill, John

Malins, Humfrey

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Carrington, Matthew

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Chapman, Sydney

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Miller, Sir Hal

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Mitchell, Sir David

Colvin, Michael

Moate, Roger

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Monro, Sir Hector

Cran, James

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Moss, Malcolm

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Mudd, David

Day, Stephen

Neale, Gerrard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Neubert, Michael

Dunn, Bob

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Durant, Tony

Norris, Steve

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Fallon, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Paice, James

Fishburn, John Dudley

Patnick, Irvine

Fookes, Dame Janet

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Forth, Eric

Pawsey, James

Fox, Sir Marcus

Porter, David (Waveney)

Franks, Cecil

Price, Sir David

Freeman, Roger

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Fry, Peter

Redwood, John

Gale, Roger

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Rhodes James, Robert

Gill, Christopher

Riddick, Graham

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Goodlad, Alastair

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Rowe, Andrew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Gow, Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Sims, Roger

Ground, Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Grylls, Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hanley, Jeremy

Squire, Robin

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Stanbrook, Ivor

Harris, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hayes, Jerry

Stern, Michael

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Stevens, Lewis

Hind, Kenneth

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Summerson, Hugo

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Irvine, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Jack, Michael

Thorne, Neil

Janman, Tim

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Key, Robert

Wallace, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Waller, Gary

Kirkhope, Timothy

Watts, John

780

Wells, Bowen

Wood, Timothy

Widdecombe, Ann

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winterton, Nicholas

Mr. Tim Devlin and

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. William Hague.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mrs. Fyfe(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to say—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order after the Division.
Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady would do herself a great justice—[Interruption.] Order. I am trying to speak. The hon. Lady will do herself justice if she waits until the Division is over so that I can hear her properly and the entire House can hear her.
Mrs. Fyfe: I accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you.
The House having divided: Ayes 173, Noes 43.

Division No. 274]

[9.58 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Atkins, Robert

Alexander, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Allason, Rupert

Batiste, Spencer

Amess, David

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Arbuthnot, James

Beith, A. J.

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bellingham, Henry

779

Bendall, Vivian

Kirkwood, Archy

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knapman, Roger

Benyon, W.

Knowles, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Boswell, Tim

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Lightbown, David

Bowis, John

Lilley, Peter

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Lord, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Bright, Graham

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Browne, John (Winchester)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Buck, Sir Antony

Maclean, David

Budgen, Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Butterfill, John

Malins, Humfrey

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Carrington, Matthew

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Chapman, Sydney

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Miller, Sir Hal

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Mitchell, Sir David

Colvin, Michael

Moate, Roger

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Monro, Sir Hector

Cran, James

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Moss, Malcolm

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Mudd, David

Day, Stephen

Neale, Gerrard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Neubert, Michael

Dunn, Bob

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Durant, Tony

Norris, Steve

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Fallon, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Paice, James

Fishburn, John Dudley

Patnick, Irvine

Fookes, Dame Janet

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Forth, Eric

Pawsey, James

Fox, Sir Marcus

Porter, David (Waveney)

Franks, Cecil

Price, Sir David

Freeman, Roger

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Fry, Peter

Redwood, John

Gale, Roger

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Rhodes James, Robert

Gill, Christopher

Riddick, Graham

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Goodlad, Alastair

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Rowe, Andrew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Gow, Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Sims, Roger

Ground, Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Grylls, Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hanley, Jeremy

Squire, Robin

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Stanbrook, Ivor

Harris, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hayes, Jerry

Stern, Michael

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Stevens, Lewis

Hind, Kenneth

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Summerson, Hugo

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Irvine, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Jack, Michael

Thorne, Neil

Janman, Tim

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Key, Robert

Wallace, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Waller, Gary

Kirkhope, Timothy

Watts, John

780

Wells, Bowen

Wood, Timothy

Widdecombe, Ann

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winterton, Nicholas

Mr. Tim Devlin and

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. William Hague.

NOES

Armstrong, Hilary

Lambie, David

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Leadbitter, Ted

Beckett, Margaret

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Bell, Stuart

McAllion, John

Bermingham, Gerald

McCartney, Ian

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

McFall, John

Buckley, George J.

McKelvey, William

Carr, Michael

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Michael, Alun

Clelland, David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cohen, Harry

Nellist, Dave

Crowther, Stan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Cryer, Bob

Redmond, Martin

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Sillars, Jim

Dixon, Don

Skinner, Dennis

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Spearing, Nigel

Eadie, Alexander

Strang, Gavin

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Wareing, Robert N.

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Flynn, Paul

Wilson, Brian

Foster, Derek

Worthington, Tony

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Graham, Thomas

Tellers for the Noes:

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mr. Mike Watson, and

Haynes, Frank

Mr. Maria Fyfe.

Ingram, Adam

Division No. 275]

[10.09 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Bowis, John

Alexander, Richard

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Allason, Rupert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Amess, David

Brazier, Julian

Arbuthnot, James

Bright, Graham

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Atkins, Robert

Browne, John (Winchester)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Buck, Sir Antony

Batiste, Spencer

Budgen, Nicholas

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Butterfill, John

Beith, A. J.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bendall, Vivian

Carrington, Matthew

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Benyon, W.

Chapman, Sydney

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Chope, Christopher

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Boswell, Tim

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Colvin, Michael

781

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Malins, Humfrey

Cran, James

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Day, Stephen

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Miller, Sir Hal

Dunn, Bob

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Durant, Tony

Mitchell, Sir David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Moate, Roger

Fallon, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Fishburn, John Dudley

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Moss, Malcolm

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Neale, Gerrard

Forth, Eric

Neubert, Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Franks, Cecil

Norris, Steve

Freeman, Roger

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Fry, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gale, Roger

Paice, James

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Patnick, Irvine

Gill, Christopher

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Goodlad, Alastair

Pawsey, James

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Price, Sir David

Gow, Ian

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Redwood, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Rhodes James, Robert

Ground, Patrick

Riddick, Graham

Grylls, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hanley, Jeremy

Rowe, Andrew

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Harris, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hayes, Jerry

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Sims, Roger

Hind, Kenneth

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Stern, Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Irvine, Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Jack, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Janman, Tim

Summerson, Hugo

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Key, Robert

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Thorne, Neil

Kirkwood, Archy

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Knapman, Roger

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Wallace, James

Knowles, Michael

Waller, Gary

Lawrence, Ivan

Watts, John

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Wells, Bowen

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Widdecombe, Ann

Lightbown, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Lilley, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Wolfson, Mark

Lord, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Tellers for the Ayes:

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Mr. Tim Devlin and

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Mr. William Hague.

Maclean, David

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
10.21 pm
Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since I do not have a bow tie, cane or tap shoes with me, you can understand my reluctance to don the top hat and go into a Ginger Rogers routine, although the top hat is disreputable enough for the "We're a couple of swells" routine. Given the propensity of former Cabinet Ministers to acquire lucrative directorships, have we any idea how many Conservative Members will profit from tonight's proceedings and when?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady waited a long time to put that point of order to me, but I must disappoint her by saying that it has nothing to do with the Chair.

ESTIMATES 1990–91
It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates 1990–91, Class II, Vote 2, Class II, Vote 4 and Class II, Vote 5.
ESTIMATES 1990–91

  CLASS II, VOTE 2
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £74,290,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, certain grants in aid, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  CLASS II, VOTE 4
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £45,583,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the British Council.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  CLASS II, VOTE 5
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £860,719,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Foreign

  783
  and Commonwealth Office; Overseas Development Administration under the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 on the official United Kingdom aid programme and for assistance to Eastern Europe; including financial and technical assistance to governments, institutions, voluntary agencies and individuals; pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service including contributions to pension funds; capital and other subscriptions and contributions, including payments under guarantee, to multilateral development banks and other international and regional bodies; emergency, refugee and other relief assistance; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation; running costs, related capital expenditure, and other administrative costs including for the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute (an executive agency).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Chapman.]

Finance Bill [Money] (No. 2)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Finance Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to provisions of the Act relating to levy on disposals of securities of companies to which the undertaking of a harbour authority is transferred and companies which control such companies.—[Mr. Lilley.]
10.22 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I do not want to detain the House too long, but there are interesting aspects of the money resolution to which I want to draw the House's attention. It states:
"for the puposes of any Act resulting from the Finance Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to provisions of the Act relating to levy on disposals of securities of companies to which the undertaking of a harbour authority is transferred and companies which control such companies."
I am not entirely sure whether we can hold the parliamentary draftsmen to account for the wording of the motion, but I am not aware that the Finance Bill spawns any Acts of Parliament. The money resolution applies only to
"any Act resulting from the Finance Bill".
That raises interesting interpretations because it would clearly exclude the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, currently going through the House under the private Bill procedure. It would also exclude the Clyde Port Authority Bill, which we have been debating on Third Reading since 7 o'clock and which now retires to the other place. It would also exclude any other privatised port where the private Bill procedure was adopted because none of that legislation, should it be enacted, results from the Finance Bill. It seems to me—I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would confirm it—that the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authorities will be excluded from the operation of the money resolution.
It is also interesting that when one reads the resolution carefully it becomes apparent that, if it applies at all, it must also apply to public Bill procedure in relation to the privatisation of ports. Many hon. Members have objected
784
to the Government using private Bill procedure for the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authorities. The money resolution will enable the Government to take 50 per cent. of the assets of the port authorities when they are privatised. However, if there is to be any Act resulting from the Finance Bill in relation to the privatisation of the ports, that must cover a public Bill. In the Queen's Speech, the Government might propose privatising the 50 or so trust ports that will remain after the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool authority.
Therefore, I respectfully submit that the wording of the money resolution is defective because no Act arises from the Finance Bill. Such Acts can come only through the House, be initiated only by the Government, be debated only by this House and the other place and be voted on, so the Finance Bill has nothing to do with any other Act. If the day were to come when the Treasury sought to recover expenses as a result of that resolution, any authority that had been privatised would be entitled to go to the High Court, refer to the money resolution, and have it set aside as invalid. Even from the wording, one can see how invalid it is. It states:
"for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Finance Bill".
I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is making a note of those points and will answer them at the end of the debate.
The money resolution is also interesting because it states:
"it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament".
What precisely does that mean? Does it mean that the Government will raid the reserves that are set aside as a result of votes in this Parliament? Will those amounts come from the so-called peace dividend, about which we have heard so much, or is that dividend all allocated to the Secretary of State for the Environment to cover the £3,500 million that he needs to put right—if he can—the consequences of the poll tax? Will there be a special impost on the entire electorate to cover those sums? Will taxes have to be raised or—to put it another way—will it now be impossible to reduce taxes? Why does the Financial Secretary to the Treasury feel that he has to come to the House tonight with this money resolution when we all know that the consequences of the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool authority will mean the disposal of about £60 million worth of assets?
If the Government carry out their intention of taking 50 per cent. of that money—£30 million—there would appear to be sufficient money in the Treasury kitty to cover the expenses, however much they may be. We have already debated Third Reading of the Clyde Port Authority Bill for three hours tonight and we know that this money resolution will cover that Bill, and that the Government—through the Treasury—propose to take 50 per cent. of the Clyde port authority's assets upon its privatisation.
My hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies may be able to tell me whether they know the precise asset value of the Clyde port authority, because I do not. If so, they would know how much the 50 per cent. that the Treasury proposes to take amounts to. But why do the Government come to the Floor of the House tonight to make special provision for the collection of those sums of money by the Treasury?
Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Minister has not opened the debate. Does my hon. Friend realise that the money resolution

785
contains no specific items for us to debate? The Finance Bill is still in Committee. So the Finance Bill Committee has not yet considered the items of legislation that the Minister is seeking the power to apply. He assumes that he will get the approval of the Committee tomorrow, and if the resolution is not approved tonight, he cannot deal with the items tomorrow in Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an outrageous abuse of parliamentary procedures?
Mr. Bell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I know that we are debating this resolution and the ways and means resolution that follows because the Finance Committee is to discuss a series of amendments tomorrow afternoon that will permit the Government to take 50 per cent. of the assets of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and the Clyde port authority. The money resolution is synchronised with the Committee's business tomorrow.
I found it strange that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury came to the House tonight and did not open this short debate on the money resolution, although we anticipated that he would. So, it again falls to the Opposition to make relevant points, to elucidate and to elicit answers from the Minister—but we have the silence of the graveyard from the Government Front Bench. It diminishes and demeans the House and parliamentary democracy when Ministers come to the Dispatch Box but do not make a speech.
Mr. Martin Redmond: I am also surprised that the Minister failed to open the debate and to explain what is involved in the resolution.
My hon. Friend mentioned assets and the way in which they will be divided. The value of assets is decided by whoever does the valuation. Given the Government's track record on the valuations that they have put on the various lands that have been flogged off to the private sector, perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me whether the assets will be correctly valued and sold to the private sector for the market price, or whether the Financial Secretary will continue to put sweeteners into the system. If the Financial Secretary had spoken, he could well have answered, but I have to ask my hon. Friend, who may or may not be aware of how the valuation is to be done.
Mr. Bell: I have no doubt that the asset value will be left to market forces. We are aware that Tees and Hartlepool port authority and Clyde port authority have valuable land assets and we do not know how they will be valued. It is interesting that my hon. Friend should make that point, because he has followed the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill through the House in all its stages. Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether the money resolution is restrospective? Will it cover other port privatisations? Is the Minister nodding or shaking his head? If he wishes to intervene to clarify the matter, I shall gladly yield the floor to him. He remains seated. No doubt he will answer my points when he replies to the debate.
Mr. Frank Haynes: The Government are at it again. They are always at it. They are putting the cart before the horse again. They have sent the errand boy from Committee to try to persuade us to agree to what they want. They are in a mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was correct.
786
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) agree that the Chair now has an opportunity to put the matter right? The Government have put the cart before the horse. It is a swindle and a fix, and the Government are always at it. It is high time that it stopped.
Mr. Bell: I agree with my hon. Friend, although I am not sure whether he was raising a point of order with the Chair or asking me a question to which he wishes me to reply. All hon. Members who have sat through the Government's remarkable proceedings on private Bills, which are in fact often hybrid Bills, will understand our problem. There was a three-hour debate earlier this evening on the privatisation of the Clyde port authority. That has now been followed by a money resolution, which is linked to that Bill, but which has been carefully separated from it so that the Bill would not be hybrid and disallowed by the House authorities.
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping has made a variety of statements, making it clear that privatisation is the route that the Government wish all the trust ports to take. However, the Government do not have the time to take the privatisations through the House in the form of a public Bill instead, they use a private Bill procedure linked to a money resolution. That is what happens after 11 years of a Government with a large majority. They pervert the procedures, customs and traditions of the House. That results in us ending up at 10.30 pm on a Monday with the Financial Secretary not intervening to answer the valid points raised by my hon. Friends and myself.
I wish to refer to the aspect of the money resolution dealing with expenses. What expenses did the Financial Secretary have in mind when he drew up the money resolution? What expenses will be incurred by the Treasury in collecting £30 million from the assets of Tees and Hartlepool? Does he envisage any difficulty in raising that money? Will he raid the petty cash? Will he send an inspector—
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is asking the Minister several questions. The Minister failed to introduce the money resolution; he has simply sat there nodding or shaking his head. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tell us whether the Minister intends to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer some of the questions asked by my hon. Friends? I object to the Minister not having given a lead into this important subject.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It was not a point of order, so it is not a matter for me.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the Minister replies to the debate, would not it be desirable for several hon. Members to have the opportunity to take part in it? Am I right in thinking that there is a strict time limit of 45 minutes for the debate? Will not mutual tolerance have to be shown by hon. Members if we are all to have the opportunity to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I gather that the feeling of the House is that there should be sufficient time to allow the

787
Minister to comment on the matters that have been raised in the debate. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind, should they catch my eye.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a problem for the House, in that as the Minister did not speak first, because he was trying to get the resolution through on the nod, we do not have information on what it relates to. As I said earlier, it does not appear in the only copy that we have of the Finance Bill. The Committee considering that Bill is due to finish tomorrow, and in the ordinary course of events, the day after that a copy of the Bill as amended in Committee would be published, incorporating any new clauses related to any money resolutions that the Committee decided to approve. We do not have that information, so we are not in a position to make a decision, until and unless the Minister explains the relationship between the Bill and the resolution. He should have spoken first.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) should be given the opportunity to conclude his speech. No doubt, the Financial Secretary will bear in mind what has been said.
Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for guidance from the Chair, but, like the House, I anticipated that the Financial Secretary would open the debate. We are aware that we have only 45 minutes to debate the issues that the money resolution raises. I should not wish to curtail my remarks, only to find that the debate has been cut to 25 minutes because the Financial Secretary declines to say anything. We have had no sign from those on the Treasury Bench, nor from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you cannot say, whether the Financial Secretary will speak. If he tells us that he will, I shall take that into account.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not escape without hearing my words of wisdom on the subject.
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I was asking the Financial Secretary what expenses he thought would be incurred in taking away from the assets of privatised ports 50 per cent. of their value, and about which ports we are talking—those about to be privatised as a result of Bills going through the House, or those that may be privatised as the result of a Government proposal, set out in the Queen's Speech, to privatise all the ports in the land. It would be interesting to know what expenses he has in mind.
The money resolution deals with a levy on disposal of securities. Which securities does the Financial Secretary have in mind? How does he see that disposal? Is he talking about cash in hand or cash in the bank, or about assets that have grown up in the port authorities over many years? Is he talking about assets developed from past Government grants? In the case of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, the Government's excuse for taking away 50 per cent. of its assets was that the Government gave grants to it 20 years ago.
It would be wrong if, when the Treasury is talking about a levy on the disposal of securities, it was talking about all the securities rather than those into which there has been a grant input from the Government. I am aware that the Public Accounts Committee likes the idea that,
788
where there has been an input from the Treasury to build up the assets of a port authority such as Tees and Hartlepool, there ought to be a return on that investment. However, it seems rather far fetched for the Treasury to take 50 per cent. of all the assets, regardless of whether there has been any input from the Treasury, and then for the Government to come to the House at this time of night to pass a resolution entitling the Treasury to collect the expenses of collecting money to which it has no entitlement. That draws attention to the manner in which the Government operate and to the arrogant way in which they deal with the House and with ports that are being privatised at their behest. At the time of the privatisation proposals, no one was told that 50 per cent. of the assets would go and that the Government would come to the House tonight to collect their expenses from the national purse.
The resolution refers to harbour authorities. Either the parliamentary draftsman or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is at fault because in the case of Tees and Hartlepool or the Clyde port authority we are dealing not simply with harbour undertakings but with port undertakings. There is a difference in law between a port and a harbour. Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authority could well argue that they have port responsibilities rather than simply harbour responsibilities. Again, the resolution is defective. When the Treasury seeks to collect those expenses from a variety of privatised ports, there will be every reason for those ports to go to court and say that the provisions do not apply to them because they are more than harbour authorities: they are port authorities, and the wording of the resolution limits the collection of any expenses to harbour authorities. Again, the parliamentary draftsman or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I should expect to take full responsibility for the resolution, seems to be building up a court case.
The resolution refers to the transfer to companies and other
"companies which control such companies".
Whom does the Financial Secretary have in mind? Does he accept the principle that Opposition Members have been arguing for many a long day and night that the privatised ports will end up in the hands of conglomerates such as P and 0 and Trafalgar House? They may be part of an expansion programme by Associated British Ports or they may end up in foreign hands. The resolution covers that eventuality by inserting provisions into the Finance Bill relating to the companies in control. When those assets are ultimately transferred into third party hands, the Treasury will be entitled under the money resolution to collect from those companies.
The wording of the resolution reveals the Government's ultimate hand. First, they wish the ports to be privatised. Secondly, they wish to take 50 per cent. of their assets. Thirdly, the Treasury wishes to collect its expenses. Fourthly, the Government anticipate that the companies will end up in the hands of conglomerates and that ports on the Tees, on the Clyde and other ports will be gobbled up when they are privatised or when the Government coerce them into the private sector.
It has not been a wasteful debate. It is not a question of passing the time of day, but it involves holding the Government to account on what appears to be defective wording, which will be challenged in the courts if any of the companies that may be affected by it are so minded.

789
The resolution cannot distinguish between a port and a harbour: it relates to Acts of Parliament arising and resulting from the Finance Bill. The wording is slothful. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will have to explain it to the House and to the Finance Bill Committee tomorrow and eventually the courts will have to interpret it.
10.49 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The purpose of the money resolution and the Ways and Means resolution is to enable this tax-raising Government to raise another new tax. In this instance, the tax would not necessarily be levied at 50 per cent., as the Government say, but in some circumstances at 100 per cent. or 110 per cent.
The Government have discovered that trust ports have money which does not seem to belong to anyone. Under this Government, the Exchequer assumes that if money does not belong to anyone in particular it ought to belong to the Exchequer and therefore the largest possible amount should be seized as quickly as possible. The effect of the proposals is to enable the Government to pay the expenses of collecting a tax, levied at 50 per cent. of the market value of the securities disposed of when trust ports are privatised.
It is relevant to remember that the market value is not necessarily the price for which the shares in the privatised ports will be sold. The Revenue may deem it to be considerably higher, and 50 per cent. of what the Revenue deems to be the market value may be as much as 100 per cent. of the value for which the securities were sold. It is rather like the Trustee Savings Bank case. The money that shareholders pay when they buy shares in a privatised trust port goes to the port and adds to the existing assets in which they are seeking to buy a share. The end result is that the value of the company is the original assets and the price paid for the shares. The tax is levied at 50 per cent. of that total. It may therefore be 100 per cent. of the original value of the port before privatisation. The Government owe an explanation as to why they are proposing to levy a tax on money which was never theirs, and at a rate potentially much higher than 50 per cent.
If one argues, as it is reasonable to argue, that there is a large windfall gain in privatisations, why should it go to the Exchequer? Why should it not go to the companies concerned and the communities in which the ports are situated? Why should it not go to the local authorities in those areas, or into a common good fund, the trustees of which could apply the money for the benefit of those areas? Why is not any levy on the privatisation process structured to ensure that it benefits the ports and the areas alongside the ports where services have to be provided such as the roads leading to the port areas?
No argument can be made for the Exchequer to claim all this money, and the argument is not being advanced by the privatising ports. They are not saying to the Government, "Please take all this money off us—we are embarrassed about having it." It would be better for the money to be given to local communities. Far from the Government encouraging the privatisation of ports under these proposals, some ports will say, "If all the money is going to the Exchequer, we do not want to follow the route of privatisation".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can see the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but he is anticipating the debate on the next motion rather than debating the money resolution.
Mr. Beith: I took advice from the Clerks before deciding whether to attempt to make two speeches or to summarise my remarks as succinctly as possible in one speech. I have opted, so far as possible, for the latter course.
My main purpose is to argue that the House, and particularly Conservative Members, should realise before passing the money resolution that we are providing for the defraying of expenses of collecting a new tax—a tax that may be levied at a high level—to which the Exchequer has no right or claim, certainly none based on the grants that it may have given to the ports, because those are repaid as part of the privatisation process.
The Government owe it to the House to explain why they are trying to levy such a tax, why they are trying to give the Exchequer money to which it has no right, why they are not trying to ensure that the money remains in the communities and with those who work in the ports, and why they are complicating the process of privatisation with a resolution for which there appears to be no demand in the ports concerned.
We shall get down to the detail in the Finance Bill Committee tomorrow. Having introduced a new clause on this subject, the Government withdrew it. Late on Friday, they retabled the new clause. Once again, it will be before the Standing Committee for tomorrow's sitting. The Government seem to be in considerable confusion about what they are doing. That is hardly surprising for a Government who are supposed to be getting rid of taxes but in fact are introducing yet another new tax on a basis for which there seems to be no defence.
10.54 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is clearly necessary to debate money motions every time they arise. As the House knows, I have paid assiduous attention to these matters over many months. There have not been many money motions in past months, so it is appropriate that I should spend a few moments on this one, giving the Minister the opportunity to make the speech that he should have made at the beginning.
It is extraordinary that the Executive should try to get such a motion through the House on the nod. No doubt the Minister had a few notes prepared, just in case the Opposition were scrupulous enough, as we always are, to check on the way in which the Government were trying to dodge the measure through the House. It is outrageous that the Vote Office has nothing available in connection with the Finance Bill and this money motion. A new clause has not yet been added to the Finance Bill to link it.
Mr. Lilley: The new clauses were put down on the amendment paper today.
Mr. Cryer: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman regards that as some sort of administrative triumph. He has God knows how many civil servants working for him and an office full of additional civil servants in his private office, but he could not get the clauses tabled until the very day when Parliament is debating the issue.
The new clauses were not available for hon. Members to take home and study at the weekend so that we could

791
come prepared to debate what we were told last Thursday was on the Order Paper. Why were the new clauses not tabled last Thursday? We could then have taken them home, got some information from the Library and been ready to subject the Minister to a thorough cross-examination. The hon. Gentleman tabled them today because he was trying to dodge accountability, just as he was trying to dodge accountability by sitting on his bottom when he should have been up explaining exactly what this was about. He should have been admitting shamefacedly to the House that the Government had made a botch of it, as they always do. The Government are abusing the democratic processes and shovelling so much legislation through that the House does not have time to debate the money motion properly.
A satisfactory amount of information is not before the House. New clauses may have been tabled to the Finance Bill, but they will be considered by the Standing Committee. Strictly, they do not have anything to do with the House. They may not be passed. The Government get the estate agents, merchant bankers and other riffraff on the Tory Benches into the Committee, tell them to "Vote this way", and expect the measures to be passed automatically without any debate or mature judgment of the issues. That is wrong. It is an affront to the intelligences even of some Conservative Members, although that is not a strong point to make.
The Minister could have helped the House a great deal if he had said all this at the beginning. He did not do so because he hoped—as the Government hope on so many occasions—to get a money motion passed on the nod. That is why I invariably speak—to disappoint the Government in that expectation, if in no other.
What annual expenditure is involved? It is an open-ended invitation to the Minister to spend what he likes. It is outrageous that we have this motion before us.
The measure is designed to obtain revenue from the transfer of the trust ports, which is being effected by private Bills. There are now so many private Bills going through the House that the Government have had to table a resolution at this late stage. I understand that the Finance Bill Committee is due to finish its deliberations tomorrow. That means that this is the last occasion on which the Government can table clauses for the Committee to consider, so the Minister's boast that the Government tabled the clauses today is an implicit admission of incompetence on his part and that of the Government. They could not have tabled them after today and they will lose the right to milk the trust ports if the resolution is not carried tonight. That is why I suggest to my hon. Friends that we should vote on the resolution and prevent its being passed. We should make sure that people understand that we know of the dodges that the Tory Government are setting about in Parliament and that, although they have a majority of 150, we intend to do our best to ensure that the resolution does not go through on the nod.
There is an important relationship between private and public Bills. As a number of Opposition Members have said, the Government are using the private Bill procedure as though it were a public Bill system of which they can take advantage. The resolution, which would enable the Government to milk the trust ports by imposing a levy, is
792
a direct example of that. If the Government did not have an organised system for piloting private Bills through Parliament, they would not need such a resolution.
Mr. Redmond: Perhaps my hon. Friend could explain the levy. The Committee may see the relevant documentation tomorrow, but when I went to the Vote Office and asked for information relating to this and to the next item on the Order Paper, I was informed that it was not available. If my hon. Friend has the proposals, perhaps he could pass them around. Indeed, the Minister could have passed them round. After all, the Government are spending millions of pounds distributing leaflets on their NHS proposals.
Mr. Cryer: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely concerned at the abuse of the House that the use of the private Bill procedure represents. We all know that my hon. Friend is honoured for holding the Executive to account on these issues.
I shall not take much longer, although I must say to the Minister, who is looking at his watch, that there will be plenty of time later. I can rely on the Minister to use his ingenuity to include any explanations that he is prevented by shortage of time from using on this resolution by his speech on the Ways and Means resolution. I do not know about my hon. Friends, but I believe that we should have a close look at that, too. If we are not satisfied—even though the debate can go on for some time—it would not be imprudent to consider voting on the Ways and Means resolution. But we shall come to that. The Minister has several minutes to make the speech that he should have made at the beginning of the debate and I now give him the opportunity to do so.
11.3 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I am glad that I did not speak at the start of the debate because I could not have forecast exactly the questions that hon. Members have properly raised. I shall do my best to respond to as many of them as I can and I shall take the opportunity, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested, to answer any outstanding questions in the subsequent debate, to which I look forward.
The resolution simply authorises the expenditure of moneys on the administration of the levy that the clauses that we shall consider in the Finance Bill Committee tomorrow would impose on any port that privatised itself. That admistrative expenditure applies only to the operation of the levy. The money resolution will not enable us to expend moneys on the privatisation of ports; the House can rest assured on that.
I was asked what was meant by
"any Act resulting from the Finance Bill".
It is, of course, the Finance Act which will result from the Finance Bill and not any private Act resulting from a private Bill now going through the House. Normally, the moneys raised used for any administrative expenditures under the Finance Bill money resolution will come from Department of Transport voted expenditure headlined for administration.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South intervened in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and asked about the non-availability of clauses. I explained that they were tabled on Friday, published on Saturday, and appear on

793
today's Order Paper. We are not debating those clauses. That will be a task for the Finance Bill Standing Committee. We tabled the clauses so that we could debate them in Committee, although we could have tabled them later on Report had we so wished and had we any subversive intent, which of course we have not.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked whether the resolution is retrospective. It is not. He also asked whether we were in any way using private Bills to privatise ports. By definition, private Bills are private and the private institution—in this case the port—brings forward the Bill, not the Government.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough also asked about the nature of the expenses that might be incurred under the money resolution. They would include valuation costs of the proceeds of sale, determining whether the levy is payable and general administrative and collection costs. I suspect that those costs will not be large, but it is right that we should receive proper authorisation before they can be undertaken.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough also asked what securities are mentioned in the Bill. They are shares in the company, debentures, stocks and bonds and not anything owned by the company. He also asked whether it was right to refer to harbour authorities rather than port authorities. I am reliably informed that all port authorities are harbour authorities.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that we were taking the opportunity to impose a tax and that the money should instead in some way be channelled to employees, local authorities and the area in general. He will find from the clauses that up to 3 per cent. of the proceeds can go to employees, and that will be a larger proportion than in any other sale. It is intended that 50 per cent. of the proceeds will be left with the company and liable to taxation. Privatisation—
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 30.

Division No. 275]

[10.09 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Bowis, John

Alexander, Richard

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Allason, Rupert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Amess, David

Brazier, Julian

Arbuthnot, James

Bright, Graham

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Atkins, Robert

Browne, John (Winchester)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Buck, Sir Antony

Batiste, Spencer

Budgen, Nicholas

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Butterfill, John

Beith, A. J.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bendall, Vivian

Carrington, Matthew

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Benyon, W.

Chapman, Sydney

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Chope, Christopher

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Boswell, Tim

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Colvin, Michael

781

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Malins, Humfrey

Cran, James

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Day, Stephen

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Miller, Sir Hal

Dunn, Bob

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Durant, Tony

Mitchell, Sir David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Moate, Roger

Fallon, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Fishburn, John Dudley

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Moss, Malcolm

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Neale, Gerrard

Forth, Eric

Neubert, Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Franks, Cecil

Norris, Steve

Freeman, Roger

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Fry, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gale, Roger

Paice, James

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Patnick, Irvine

Gill, Christopher

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Goodlad, Alastair

Pawsey, James

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Price, Sir David

Gow, Ian

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Redwood, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Rhodes James, Robert

Ground, Patrick

Riddick, Graham

Grylls, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hanley, Jeremy

Rowe, Andrew

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Harris, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hayes, Jerry

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Sims, Roger

Hind, Kenneth

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Stern, Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Irvine, Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Jack, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Janman, Tim

Summerson, Hugo

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Key, Robert

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Thorne, Neil

Kirkwood, Archy

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Knapman, Roger

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Wallace, James

Knowles, Michael

Waller, Gary

Lawrence, Ivan

Watts, John

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Wells, Bowen

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Widdecombe, Ann

Lightbown, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Lilley, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Wolfson, Mark

Lord, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Tellers for the Ayes:

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Mr. Tim Devlin and

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Mr. William Hague.

Maclean, David

NOES

Armstrong, Hilary

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cohen, Harry

Beckett, Margaret

Cryer, Bob

Bell, Stuart

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Bermingham, Gerald

Dixon, Don

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Buckley, George J.

Eadie, Alexander

Carr, Michael

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

782

Flynn, Paul

Nellist, Dave

Foster, Derek

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Fyfe, Maria

Redmond, Martin

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Sillars, Jim

Graham, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Spearing, Nigel

Haynes, Frank

Strang, Gavin

Hinchliffe, David

Wareing, Robert N.

Ingram, Adam

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Lambie, David

Wilson, Brian

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Worthington, Tony

McFall, John

McKelvey, William

Tellers for the Noes:

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mr. Mike Watson and

Michael, Alun

Mr. Ian McCartney.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Division No. 276]

[11.07 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Allason, Rupert

Chapman, Sydney

Amess, David

Chope, Christopher

Arbuthnot, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Batiste, Spencer

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bellingham, Henry

Cran, James

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Boswell, Tim

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bowis, John

Day, Stephen

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Devlin, Tim

Brazier, Julian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bright, Graham

Durant, Tony

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fallon, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Fishburn, John Dudley

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Carrington, Matthew

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

794

Forth, Eric

Moate, Roger

Franks, Cecil

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Freeman, Roger

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Gale, Roger

Moss, Malcolm

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Neale, Gerrard

Gill, Christopher

Neubert, Michael

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gow, Ian

Norris, Steve

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Paice, James

Ground, Patrick

Patnick, Irvine

Hague, William

Pawsey, James

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hanley, Jeremy

Price, Sir David

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Harris, David

Redwood, John

Hind, Kenneth

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Rhodes James, Robert

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Irvine, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Jack, Michael

Stern, Michael

Janman, Tim

Stevens, Lewis

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Knapman, Roger

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Knowles, Michael

Summerson, Hugo

Lawrence, Ivan

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Lightbown, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lilley, Peter

Thorne, Neil

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Twinn, Dr Ian

Maclean, David

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Widdecombe, Ann

Malins, Humfrey

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Winterton, Nicholas

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Wolfson, Mark

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Miller, Sir Hal

Mr. Nicholas Baker and

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Mr. Timothy Wood.

Mitchell, Sir David

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Finance Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to provisions of the Act relating to levy on disposals of securities of companies to which the undertaking of a harbour authority is transferred and companies which control such companies.

Ways and Means

  LEVY ON PORT PRIVATISATIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That provision may be made for a levy on disposals of securities of companies to which the undertaking of a harbour authority is transferred and companies which control such companies and for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of payments of levy, interest on unpaid levy and penalties in respect of levy.—[Mr. Lilley.]
  11.18 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Notices of amendments were given to Standing Committee E on the Finance Bill and they relate to the two resolutions, the first of which has just been disposed of. Will it be in order to discuss any of the new clauses, which are clearly relevant to the debate? Are the new clauses the property of the Committee until it makes a decision and reports to the House? I think that I know the answer to my questions, but, naturally, I seek your confirmation and guidance. If we are excluded from debating these matters, the House is being outrageously dealt with by the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman is interpreting the advice that has been given to me, which is that it would be in order to discuss the matters to which the motion applies.
  11.20 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I shall endeavour to respond to some of the points raised but not answered on the previous motion. I shall be as brief as possible because I know that the House does not want to keep itself from its bed.
  The Government have tabled six new clauses to the Finance Bill to provide for a 50 per cent. levy on the proceeds of the privatisation of trust ports. The House will be aware that two trust ports—the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and the Clyde port authority—are seeking to turn themselves into companies by means of private Acts of Parliament. The Government welcome that initiative because we see considerable benefits from early privatisation which will remove unnecessary restrictions on the way in which the port businesses can be developed, allow ports to develop their assets and give them a more flexible capital base while exposing them more fully to the disciplines of the market. The Government believe that privatisation will increase the efficiency of the trust ports and lead to a better service to port users.
  The trust ports are owned not by the Government but by the state. It must be for Parliament to decide who should benefit from the proceeds of sale. In the Government's view, a proportion of the proceeds should go to the Exchequer. The clause provides that this proportion should be 50 per cent. It is a matter of judgment what the right proportion should be. In making their decision, the Government have tried to be fair to all the parties involved, including the ports and the Exchequer.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the only deductions from the capital raised by the flotation be the 50 per cent. taken by the Government, or will tax be levied on top of that?
  Mr. Lilley: Tax will apply to the proceeds in the normal way, but the levy will be a cost to be deducted in calculating any capital gain, which will be liable to capital gains tax. Therefore, the capital gain left after the levy will bear the burden of capital gains tax.
  Mr. Devlin: What proportion of the total proceeds will be left with the successor companies?
  Mr. Lilley: Clearly the proportion will be somewhat less than 50 per cent. How much capital gains tax is required will depend on the capital gain and the companies' ingenuity in reducing the capital gains tax that they pay.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: A moment ago the Minister said that the ports were owned by the state. What is the state in this context? If it is not the Crown, can he explain any basis of English law in which there is something called the state which can own ports?
  Mr. Lilley: It was the courts which used the term "owned by the state". It is not a term that we have added to their vocabulary. It comes from the vocabulary of the courts.
  It is a matter of judgment to decide what is the right proportion that should be taken in the form of a levy. In making their decision, the Government have tried to be fair to all parties, including both the ports and the Exchequer. We had to take into account several factors. Factors which suggested a higher Exchequer share included the need to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer, who has contributed to the development of the trust ports, albeit on a relatively modest scale; and the need to ensure a level playing field between the newly privatised trust ports and ports already in the private sector. Allowing the trust ports to keep the majority of the proceeds would give them an unfair commercial advantage over ports already operating privately.
  There were several arguments in favour of a lower Exchequer share. They included the desirability of rewarding the initiative shown by authorities such as the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authorities of introducing private Bills; the benefits of early privatisation; the need to retain an incentive for other trust ports to seek privatisation; and, of course, the ports' intention to use some of the funds to invest in new developments and develop their existing assets.
  Mr. Devlin: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend again. If the proposals are accepted—this is of fundamental importance to the privatisation of the two ports—there will be no incentive for any other port to follow in their footsteps. Secondly, there will be no proper reward for the two companies that so bravely went forward where others feared to tread. Thirdly, benefit will be lost to the peoples of the Clyde and Teesside, who would otherwise have benefited, because in both instances the ports will have to go to the markets in London for their flotations if they are to make a real profit. That will be a disaster for my constituents and for the constituents of Clydeside Members.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is unduly pessimistic. I am surprised to find that he has an ally in the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that the ports will have no incentive to privatise. They will retain 50 per cent. of the funds.
  Mr. Devlin: My hon. Friend said that that would be taxed.
  Mr. Lilley: Of course. The receipts will be subject to capital gains tax. That has always been the position and it is not being altered. We are merely reducing the net assets that will be liable to taxation.
  The incentive to privatise is not only to retain funds from the issue. The ports have made a strong case—I consider it to be a convincing one—that they are hampered by the present deeds and structure of their make-up. They wish to have a private company structure and to be freed from the limitations that are now imposed on the activities in which they can engage. They would not desist because the money that they obtain will be somewhat less than previously was estimated. It seems not unreasonable that we would take 50 per cent. of the proceeds. I recall that we took 100 per cent. in the case of Associated British Ports. I do not take the pessimistic view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).
  Mr. Stuart Bell: If 50 per cent. of the assets are to be taken by the Government, that leaves 50 per cent. of the proceeds. If 40 per cent. is the higher rate of capital gains tax, is it not right that 40 per cent. of the 50 per cent. will further be taken by the Government?
  Mr. Lilley: I imagine that in this instance capital gains tax will be paid at the corporation tax rate rather than at the higher rate of CGT, and that is 35 per cent.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister sure about that?
  Mr. Lilley: I am never sure of anything.
  Mr. Skinner: I hope that that will be written down.
  Mr. Lilley: Bearing in mind all the considerations which I have outlined, the Government believe that, on balance, 50 per cent. is right. As the new clause imposes a charge, we need a Ways and Means motion such as the one which is before the House.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was critical of the Government for imposing a tax and suggested that money should be diverted to employees, local authorities and others. Without a levy, it would be impossible to divert money to any specified beneficiaries, unless the hon. Gentleman proposes to do so by a thoroughly unparliamentary means such as extra-parliamentary plunder. I shall be grateful if he enlightens the House on that score.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why we withdrew the ways Ways and Means motion earlier and suggested that the Government were having second thoughts and wished to alter it. We withdrew it because we wished hon. Members to be able to go home to bed after they had been debating other matters at great length. It seemed sensible to withdraw it and then to reintroduce it. The motion was tabled on Friday and copies of it were available in the Vote Office that morning. It was published on Saturday and it could have been taken home by hon. Members over the weekend.
  Mr. Beith: If the House is to be asked to pass the motion, surely it must be on the basis that the Government have specific plans to channel the revenue to the good of the employees and communities concerned. On that basis, it might be worth inviting the House to approve it. It is
  798
  apparent, however, that the Government have no plans to do that. It is on that basis that I argue that it is wrong for the money to go to the central Exchequer.
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the central Exchequer should never receive any money from taxation or levies, he will be hard pressed to finance the public expenditure plans he supports.
  In the clauses we have spelt out that up to 3 per cent. of the shares can go to employees, that 50 per cent. will be retained, before being subject to capital gains tax, by the trust ports. That money will be reinvested in the ports and in assets that have lain idle and undeveloped because of the restrictions imposed on the operations by the trustee status of the ports. The money will therefore be channelled automatically into the local authority areas. The other 50 per cent. will be available to the Exchequer to put to the excellent use to which the Government put public expenditure.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Financial Secretary said that he is never sure about anything and, having followed him through most of the Committee on the Finance Bill, I cannot contradict him.
  For the avoidance of doubt, it would be helpful to the House if I said that the Ways and Means resolution that we are discussing will enable the Government to introduce clauses into the Finance Bill tomorrow to bring in a new tax. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps better than anyone in the House, that, in the normal way of things, the Finance Bill Committee is not allowed to put up taxes or introduce new ones. Our affairs are circumscribed by the resolutions passed in the House at the end of the debate on the Budget. To facilitate such an unusual course of events, the Government have come to the House, correctly in their terms, to get the money resolution and the Ways and Means resolution through.
  The resolution does not serve any announced taxation policy—there was no word about it in the Budget speech or on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. It does not concern a new tax nor does it raise VAT or adjust the rates of income tax to secure better the revenues of the state. The resolution has been tagged on to the end of the Finance Bill to facilitate private legislation. The Labour party regards that as an abuse of the Finance Bill procedures. It is wrong that privatisation measures introduced through the private Bill procedure—technically they are not backed or opposed by the Government or the Opposition, but are subject to a free vote—should be facilitated by the Finance Bill.
  The Labour party is opposed to privatisation measures, but that is not the matter under discussion tonight. We are discussing the share-out—the division of the money. The Government have argued that the trust ports belong not to the Government, but to the state. If that is so, surely it behoves the House to consider the mechanism by which the state offers those trust ports for sale. We are well aware that that mechanism is a private Bill passed through the House and the other place. The sale is governed by the decision of Parliament.
  Who is in charge of the administration of the state? It is ludicrous for the Government to try to pretend that that is not a matter for them. For whom is it a matter if not for the Government? The Government must make the decision. If the state is offering the trust ports for sale and

  799
  the Government are in charge of the state, surely the Government keep the money realised from the sale. That, surely, is the logical position, although it is not the one that the Government are adopting.
  The Government could adopt an alternative position. They could say that these institutions are somehow in limbo—not actually owned by the state and controlled by the Government but more distant. The analogy might be with a family company that is floating on the stock exchange and raising money in the same way as would any other private company that is going public. But surely, in these circumstances, the analogy should be with a company raising extra money that would accrue to the company—and to no one else, certainly not to the Government. Those seem to be alternatives: the Government cannot say that both are true, since they are mutually contradictory. So the Government will take half the money and the other half will remain with the port companies and be subject to taxation in the usual way.
  If the proposals are passed tomorrow, the tax obligation placed on the new limited companies will be the minimum 50 per cent., instead of the maximum.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend will bear it in mind that, in the new clauses tabled for debate by the Finance Bill Committee, the Government will take powers, subject to resolution of the House, to alter that percentage to any that they deem suitable. Fifty per cent. is only an assumption, subject to alteration at the whim of the Government.
  Mr. Brown: We can go on only what the Government have told us of their intentions so far, but my hon. Friend is quite right. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a similar point, and he could have gone on to say that the tax treatment of the proceeds involved in this operation is bound to affect the share price. As people consider what they will pay for the Clyde or Tees and Hartlepool port authorities—we have not even agreed to pass the privatisation legislation in respect of the latter—they will inquire about the tax treatment of the institutions that they are buying. If a large amount of the proceeds revert to the Government, the value of the shares will fall; and if the whole proceeds stay with the company as if it were a private company going public, presumably the value of the shares will rise.
  The privatisation process is highly unlikely to help Clyde, Tees and Hartlepool or any of the other 50 small trust ports that may end up in the hands of private capital. The private investment will come from all over the country. If there are profits—especially short-term profits—to be made from the privatisation, those profits will be dispersed all over the country, not retained as they should be, in the region in which they originated. Were successor public authorities to be created, we could ensure that the profits were retained locally.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), in the debate on the Clyde port authority, mentioned the public duties placed on the port authorities—to dredge rivers for river users, to maintain lighthouses—which thereby incur expenditure that does not necessarily generate a return. How will such duties sit alongside private sector ownership? Unhappily, I suggest. In the previous debate the Government did not say what
  800
  provision they intended to cover these matters. I suspect that the Financial Secretary will say nothing on the subject tonight, but we shall press him on it tomorrow.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Why have not the Government written that into the Bill? Obviously, they do not want liability to fall upon the new privatised ports and harbours—or whatever the Financial Secretary wants to call them. If liability does not fall on the privatised companies, where does it fall, if not upon the public purse? The poor old taxpayer may have to continue to pick up the bill for performing a duty that should rightly belong to the new privatised industry.
  Mr. Brown: I share my hon. Friend's fears. Probably it would work like this: the newly privatised port authorities, which will command a monopoly when running the facilities of the port or harbour of which they are in charge, will say to the users, "The cost of dredging is this. If you want it done to a certain depth, you will each pay your share, and if you object to that, we won't do it." The days when the river was dredged for them, as a subsidy to industry along the river, will be over. The same may even be true of the maintenance of lighthouses, which people's lives depend on. The privatised port authority will say to users who require the lighthouse to be there, "You will pay the economic cost or it will not be maintained."
  I remind the House that we are talking not merely about assets that pertain to the operation of a port authority—there is much more to it. The port authorities own assets that far outstrip the narrow function of running a port. Indeed, one of the arguments for privatisation is that full and proper economic use of those assets cannot be made under the current trust status, which relates solely to port operation. A limited company, a series of limited companies, or an owning company and another company that will run the port separately—allowing the owning company to get on with other economic activities—are required. In other words, they will get on with the exploitation of surplus land, because there certainly is surplus land in many port authorities.
  Tees and Hartlepool port authority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) knows, said in its notes of evidence that it is aware that
  "The current members of the Port Authority at the time when the Act is implemented, will be responsible for setting up the companies and will of course constitute the Trust, which will be responsible for the sale.
  The current members have said that the Bill will enable the business to 'have scope to develop outside the estuary, both elsewhere in the UK and in Europe, and both in the provision of port facilities and in other distribution activities.'
  The current members also said again in a press statement, issued when the Bill was announced:—' The authority is determined that broadening its business scope will take place without diminishing its commitment to maintain, develop and expand the ports of Tees and Hartlepool and that direction of its activities will remain on Teesside so as to ensure that the area shares to the maximum in the benefit that will accrue"'—
  I emphasise this—
  from the development of its business on a broader scale."'
  In other words, private status and expansion are intended, which, as my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Middlesbrough would be quick to point out, is bound to be facilitated by the existence of urban development corporations in the areas that many of the port trusts under consideration occupy. State money for economic development sits alongside new limited

  801
  companies that have trading in spheres other than narrow port operations as a stated objective. The opportunity to make substantial profits on real estate speculation is considerable.
  Mr. Cryer: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Exmouth Docks Bill. Exmouth is a relatively small port, and it has been closed illegally. The authority applied to the House for permission to close it, but has done so without waiting for that. Exmouth's function as a harbour has been neglected, to the detriment of the immediate hinterland, because the directors want to develop surplus land for a marina and associated housing. That area has lost a valuable transport facility.
  Mr. Brown: As a Member of Parliament for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne, I am not unfamiliar with such scams. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to one in another part of the country. The opportunities—and my hon. Friend gives a stark example—are considerable. I and other hon. Members must challenge the wisdom and the equity of what the Government are doing. If there is a need for a change in status for the port authorities that provide important public services, surely we should look for successor institutions in the public sector. Such institutions are quite capable of taking care of economic development functions, and of doing so in such a way that they are accountable to the local community. The social desirability and the profits of such activities are matters for the local community and not for people who happen to end up as owners of the new private sector institutions, perhaps because of their position prior to privatisation. Many people have been put in influential positions prior to privatisation by no other person than the Secretary of State for Transport, who has charge of such appointments.
  The Government did not announce the new tax in the Budget. They did not announce it on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Indeed, their first reference to the fact that they might take a share in the proceeds of the sale, other than through normal taxation—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough referred—was in a ministerial response on Second Reading of the Clyde Port Authority Bill. That was when they announced the proposed 50 per cent. take. It was on the evening prior to the Committee stage of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill.
  It was clear from the answers given by the chief executive of the port authority at the Committee hearing that the level of take and its mechanism had been something of a shock. That view is underscored by the fact that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who chaired the proceedings, tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill to reduce the percentage of the Government's take. That amendment has disappeared—[Interruption.] It has disappeared. I do not know what magic has brought that about.
  Mr. Beith: The answer is simple—the Government withdrew their clause, thereby sweeping away amendments that had been tabled to it. They then retabled the clause a couple of days later.
  Mr. Brown: In those circumstances, surely it would be possible also to retable the amendment—but it has not reappeared. It is probably too late as the matter is to be discussed tomorrow.
  802
  It is important that the House realises that we are considering a Ways and Means motion that will facilitate a new levy. It is not connected with corporation tax or capital gains tax. Technically, it is difficult to understand, although the objectives are clear. The levy is payable only on a disposal of securities to what is referred to as a successor company from what is referred to as a relevant port authority. In other words, the latter can be only a harbour authority that is not already a company and is not a local authority. I am assuming that if it is a company owned by the Government or local authorities, all the proceeds of privatisation flow into the right pockets anyway, and if it is a privately owned company, it could not be privatised again.
  The levy is designed to apply where a non-company harbour authority transfers its trade, an undertaking by Act of Parliament, to a subsidiary in exchange for shares. In other words, the circumstances that we are expecting to pertain following the passage of the private Bill on the Clyde port trust, and that on the Tees and Hartlepool port trust, if those Bills are passed, will apply if the companies then sell the shares. The Government may say that the levy applies only where the shares are sold by the relevant port authority or its creature. The taxation of such schemes is, by necessity, complex. It will depend on the corporation tax statutes, the harbour authority, the terms of the private Act, and the scheme for transferring the trade. However, at first sight, the levy is a second non-offsetable charge to tax. Although that may not be what the Government intend, what has been published shows that that is how the scheme will operate in practice.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will tell us what his proposals are. Assuming that privatisation goes ahead, what does he think should happen to the proceeds? Is he saying that 100 per cent. should remain with the new owners, or that 100 per cent. should revert to the taxpayer, or what?
  Mr. Brown: I thought that I had dealt with that point. The Labour party's view is that if there is a need to restructure the Clyde or the Tees and Hartlepool trust port, there should be a successor—more modern, and perhaps more versatile, but a public authority in the public domain, representing the interests in the local community, and carrying on what are essentially public functions. The Labour party is voting against the private Bills—a fact that the hon. Gentleman has probably noticed. For the hon. Gentleman to say that, while we disagree with it, it has now been done and we should say what the tax treatment should be, is disingenuous. We do not think that it should have been done in the first place. Therefore, I see no point in answering the hon. Gentleman's question. I have made it clear that we believe that it should not have been done in the first place. It is like saying to somebody, "You don't believe in capital punishment, but if people have to be put to death, should they be hung or gassed?" It should not be done at all.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting away from the resolution before the House. I hope that we shall get back to it.
  Mr. Brown: I have done my best to answer the question in my terms. I am sorry that I will not come on to the hon. Gentleman's ground, and debate the details of a matter that is wholly for the Government, not the Opposition. We

  803
  do not agree with it, so we shall not join the argument about how the spoils should be shared out. There should not be any spoils. The money should remain with the local community, in a successor public authority.
  Mr. Moate: This is an important matter, not just for the ports that we are discussing at the moment but for many other trust ports. Assuming that privatisation takes place—and the hon. Gentleman volunteered that that is not what we are debating—does not it behove the hon. Gentleman to make serious proposals about what should happen to the proceeds? Have not the Government come forward with an acceptable—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not pursue that line of debate, because I should have to rule it out of order. I hope that the House will confine itself to the motion.
  Mr. Brown: I have done my best with the question. If it would help the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that we shall be voting against the Government's proposals tomorrow, and if Tory Members on the Committee considering the Finance Bill wish to oppose them as well, perhaps because they think that the proposed tax is too high or too low—both lines are open to them—all that they have to do is to shout no when we do. I wonder how many Tory Members will do that. The hon. Gentleman does not have to persuade me to vote against the Government; he has to convince his hon. Friends and I suspect that that is a different matter.
  As I understand the proposals—I know that we shall be going into more detail tomorrow, so I shall not detain the House much longer—the levy can be deducted in calculating any gain made on the sale of the shares that attract the levy. That suggests that quite large gains on the sale of those shares are expected. That brings me back to what we consider to be at the heart of the debate. Quite substantial sums—£60 million in the Hartlepool and Tees port trust and a slightly smaller sum, in the mid-£50 million range, in the Clyde port trust—are at stake. The House should take seriously the treatment of that money. We consider that the Government should establish successor public authorities that will serve the public interest rather than bolt through the private Bill procedure and, through very tacky use of the Finance Bill, facilitate a measure that will be in the long-term disinterest of the citizens whom the port authorities serve and the people of our country.
  11.56 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I shall not detain the House long as I know that my hon. Friends wish to get on with the debate as quickly as possible, but I wish to make one important point.
  The levy is a new tax on a completely new procedure for taking trust ports out of the public sector and putting them into the private sector. One could argue convincingly on both sides of the question as to whether such a levy should be made and whether it should be 100 per cent. or nil.
  Two particular points concern me as a constituency Member of Parliament near one of the ports currently undergoing privatisation. First, as I understand it, the amendments to be introduced in the Finance Bill Committee tomorrow attach the levy not to the proceeds
  804
  of sale but to the market value of shares. Therefore, if the ports go to the market and the market gives them a certain price which is taken to be the proceeds, they will face the levy not on the proceeds gained from the sale but on what the shares might have realised if they had been sold in the City of London.
  The plan in regard to Teessideis that the port will sell its shares to local pension funds and other interested bodies so as to keep the equity and the interest in the local community.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: I will give way in a moment, but I wish to finish this important point.
  If the proposal goes through as currently drafted, instead of the shares being offered to the people and the pension funds of Teesside, they will be offered to the City. That is why I reject all the assurances given by the promoters of the Bill when it came before the House some time ago.
  Secondly, the levy is not the end of the taxing arrangements for privatisation. The 50 per cent. levy is a straight abstraction of funds from the privatisation process. In addition, there will be a further rate of corporation tax of the order of 30 per cent. That means that approximately 65 per cent. of the possible market value of the shares will be abstracted from the flotation. Indeed, it is possible that more than 100 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale will be abstracted. It will thus have failed completely and there will be no reward for the brave local authority proposing the plan and no incentive for any other public port to go through the same process. I am profoundly disturbed by that.
  I understand that the Liberals tabled some amendments to the original proposals but dropped them when the draft clause was withdrawn. As the new clause has been introduced in a slightly different form, the amendments would not normally attach to it, but it has been confirmed that the Liberals' amendments will attach to it tomorrow. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and further amendments being tabled by Conservative Members will attach to it when it is considered tomorrow.
  I am happy to vote for the concept of a levy on disposals for the purposes of the motion, but I am not in favour of a levy on the market value of the shares rather than on the proceeds of the sale, thus making privatisation a meaningless process. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that closely because, unfortunately, I shall not have the pleasure of joining him in Committee tomorrow morning.
  Dr. Godman: The concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed about the need to retain the ownership and management of a port authority in the locality is shared equally by Clydeside Members in relation to the privatisation of the Clyde port authority.
  Mr. Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) did not satisfactorily answer the question about how much of the proceeds should be retained by the state. It is no answer for him to say that we should not undergo this process. He must face the question of the tax treatment. The only ideologically pure position for the

  805
  Labour party is to abstract 100 per cent. of the proceeds of sale. That is what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East should have had the courage to say.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: I will just finish this point. The hon. Gentleman will not say that because he is a north-eastern Member of Parliament and does not want to upset the voting public around the ports on the Clyde and Teesside.
  Mr. Brown: That is all very well, but Newcastle ceased to be a port some time ago. With a majority of 12,500—somewhat larger than the hon. Gentleman's—I do not have to kowtow to any interest group in my constituency, and I certainly would not do so. The point that the Labour party is making is that we do not have to say how we would deal with the proceeds of the sale of these institutions because we would not sell them at all—we would create successor authorities in the public sphere and in the public interest, something that the Conservative party seems willing to overlook.
  Mr. Devlin: As the Labour party does not have a view on this matter, it will obviously sit mute in Committee tomorrow and not oppose the Government or say anything further, allowing hon. Members who do not have difficulties about dealing with the tax treatment of this problem to deal with it among themselves. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and his party will sit there and say nothing.
  12.3 am
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I am a member of the Finance Bill Committee and chairperson of the Transport and General Workers Union parliamentary group. Under the private Bill procedure, our union submitted a great deal of evidence about the effects of the levy and proposals for the surplus income realised by the sale of the assets.
  The motion is a Government attempt to provide a back-up to the proposals in new clauses 67 to 72 of the Finance Bill, which will be considered tomorrow. The Government want to provide a new, confiscatory tax on the assets realised from the privatisation of the Clyde port authority, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and other authorities to be privatised later. The new clauses will allow the Government to implement their announcement that they intend to take 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the privatisation of any trust port.
  The British Ports Federation urged the Government to introduce general enabling legislation to allow trust ports to go down the privatisation road, if they so decide. Through lack of public parliamentary time, the Government have not been able to provide the necessary facilities to allow the companies to go down that route. They have offered the private Bill procedure, and the Clyde port authority and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority are following it.
  The Government's actions in the motion and the new clauses are not a million miles away from the procedures applying to the disposal of assets by local authorities. New clause 67 states:
  "—(1) A levy shall be chargeable on the disposal of securities of a company which is, or has control of, a successor company to a relevant port authority if the disposal is made by—

  (a) the relevant port authority,

  806

  (b) a company under the control of the relevant port authority, or

  (c) a person constituted under a private Act the Bill for which was promoted by the relevant port authority."

  Only 20 per cent. of the income derived from the capital receipts gained by a local authority in the disposal of its assets can remain with the authority for the use of the community, while the remainder goes to the Treasury. Under the motion, at least 50 per cent. of the capital receipts accrued from privatisation goes to the Treasury and will not be retained by the successor company for use in developing the port or in assisting the community through a development agency, the local authority or a similar body. The successor company will be prevented from using the money in the way that it would prefer.
  The Government's 50 per cent. proposal could have been influenced by arguments in opposition during the passage of the Clyde Port Authority Bill and the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. Those who presented petitions and gave evidence to the Committees made it clear that, if privatisation went ahead, the capital receipts accruing from the sale should remain with the successor companies and within the local communities, for the development of port resources and facilities and to utilise joint projects within the ports and in the surrounding hinterland. The new clause would remove that opportunity.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House put aside their objections to the original privatisation proposals on the ground that, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said, assurances had been given that resources accruing from the sales would be ploughed back into the development of the infrastructure in the local communities from which the assets had been realised. Most of the ports are located in areas where resources are required to develop alternative forms of employment and infrastructure, so one can understand the opposition to the Government's proposals. Under new clause 67, millions of pounds' worth of assets accruing from the sales may be siphoned off to the Exchequer rather than being used by the successor company or by that company in conjunction with the local community.
  When the British Transport Docks Board was privatised and became Associated British Ports, the equity value of the company was way below what the Government had estimated before the flotation price was set. The assets were completely undervalued and initially the company did not realise its true value on the open market. Under the Ways and Means resolution and new clause 67, both the Clyde ports authority and the Tees and Hartlepool ports authority may be sold on the open market at considerably less than their true market value. If their assets are undervalued, the resources coming back into the successor companies will be less than one might have expected. At the same time, the authorities will have a minimum of 50 per cent. of their supposed assets taken by the Treasury. That will undermine the long-term viability of the company and its ability to raise capital to develop the port facilities which the Government so readily suggested needed to be privatised so as to raise the finance to develop future opportunities in the ports. Those resources will be withdrawn from the ports, first by undervaluation on flotation and, secondly, by the imposition of a confiscatory tax after the sale.
  Dr. Godman: If new clause 67 is successful, it is likely that the port authority will become more of a property company and will divorce itself from its maritime industrial activities. That will damage many maritime communities on the Clyde.
  Mr. McCartney: From my own personal background, history and heritage, I know a great deal about that question. My father was the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for a number of years and I was brought up in a Clyde port community. No one seems to realise that the current capability of the assets of the Clyde port authority are to be counted not in tens of millions or thousands of millions of pounds. We are talking about hundreds of billions of pounds' worth of public assets developed over a number of years being floated off on privatisation. Moreover, at least 50 per cent. of the resources from those assets will not be ploughed back into the Clyde port communities, which are suffering from under-investment and chronic unemployment and which have been devastated in the past decade by the withdrawal of shipbuilding and associated industries. The resources accrued from those assets should be used on the Clyde, but instead they will be withdrawn from the CPA area and used by the Government, no doubt to provide tax cuts for the well-off in the run-up to the next general election.
  It is vitally important that we relate this motion to the new clauses that the Government intend to move in Committee tomorrow. When we consider what the Government intend to do in terms of confiscating huge public resources for the Treasury, we believe that we have every right to question the Government's right to raise that kind of taxation levy.
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is making an important contribution to the debate. Does he accept what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said earlier—that the Government are simply confiscating the funds, that they are not earmarking them for any special purpose but simply putting them into the contingency fund where they will be absorbed without benefiting the communities involved?
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are confiscating the resources. They are not ring-fencing them for the development of port facilities for 1992 and beyond and the pressures that will come from our European competitors in Rotterdam and the North sea ports from Germany to Portugal. The Government are not trying to use the resources to develop port facilities and the hinterland to face the situation after deregulation in 1992.
  The Government have given no indication that they will use the resources for retraining in the ports. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the past decade. Indeed, in the past 12 months thousands of jobs have been lost in port communities on the western and eastern seaboards of Britain. The Government have not sought to ring-fence the resources for training and retraining, nor the resources being ring-fenced to pay for a high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel to improve Britain's transport infrastructure. It is clear that the resources are to be cynically siphoned off by the Government for whatever short-term financial gain they think they can get in relation to the electorate.
  Worst of all, the communities concerned will lose those resources for ever. The opportunity to improve the
  808
  transport infrastructure to and between ports in Britain will also be lost for at least another decade. The Government are not just being negligent—in industrial and taxation terms they are being criminally negligent as they try to implement new clauses 67 to 72 in Committee tomorrow.
  My hon. Friends will return constantly to this point and question the Government's right to take 50 per cent. of an artificial value of a port asset, even taking into account the capital gains liability, to create an effective deterrent to predators subsequent to the sale of the port and its assets.
  In evidence to the Committee on the Tees and Hartlepool Ports Authority Bill, the Transport and General Workers Union said:
  "If port authorities wish to go private, then the assets in the port should be vested in a new statutory body made up of representatives in the port area and the surrounding community, comprising employees, local residents, users of the port facilities, shipping interests, the port authority, the regional and local county council and, where one exists, a regional development corporation."
  That would seem to me—and, I assume, to Conservative Members interested in the development of their local communities and employment opportunities in those communities—to be a reasonable proposal. If privatisation is to take place, the benefits should be spread throughout the community and the resources from the privatisation should be used to develop the community's infrastructure.
  The proposal seems not dissimilar to the Government's argument on the creation of urban development corporations. They implied that UDCs would have a job to do in conjunction with local business communities, local trade unions, local authorities, and so on. When it comes to privatisation, ports will be disembowelled at the point of sale, and 50 per cent. of their assets will be dragged from them and the community, placed in the hands of the Exchequer and used for projects other than the development of the local economy. That runs counter to the Government's strategy of regenerating communities in the north-west, the north-east and other parts of Britain, such as Scotland, where because of the historical run-down of ports there is massive unemployment and much land dereliction.
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend will have noted the statement by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the ports are owned by the state and are not trust ports, as that was originally defined in relation to 50 or so ports. Is it not a fact that when they were trust ports they were held in trust for the local communities? Is not that the point that we are trying to convey to the Financial Secretary? Being trust ports, in the interests of local communities, the proceeds should be ring-fenced in the interests of local communities if there is to be privatisation.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not have time to discuss the history of the development of trust ports, but they were set up to protect the interests of local communities. The subsequent development of ports had to relate to the needs of local communities. In most instances, whether they were large or small trust ports, there was a good working relationship between local communities, local authorities, chambers of commerce and other local institutions and the port for the development of programmes of activities to ensure the best use of those ports on behalf of the community and the local economy.
  Mr. Cryer: Is it not also true that a successful and expanding port often means greatly increased volumes of traffic in the immediate area? Local communities have therefore carried the burden of a large amount of traffic congestion and noise, mainly from large lorries up to 38 tonnes, the maximum weight available because of port haulage. If the local community has to bear that burden, it might at least have some of the benefits arising from privatisation.
  Mr. McCartney: I used to work for the Labour party in Kent, not 100 yd from the eastern docks of Dover. I know all too well the consequences of literally millions of tonnes of lorry movements a year to and from the port. In the mid-1970s, the local community argued for a levy at the port to take account of the environmental consequences for communities living near port facilities.
  The argument about the sale and confiscation of resources to the national Exchequer rather than remaining in the community is partly a response to the need to provide additional investment to improve the environment in communities near port facilities. Improvements in areas of land dereliction, transport infrastructure, and so on are related to activities of roll-on/roll-off traffic to and from ports, and require capital investment and capital resources, which could come from the sale of the ports. The sales represent a huge financial bonanza for the Government, who will guarantee those resources to themselves at the expense of the local community.
  In its evidence to the Committee examining the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill my union also said that a devolved structure which would involve the community with the successor company had an important physical asset. The union said:
  "The structure would ensure that the control of the port's assets would be securely retained in the community which had taken the major role in generating the port's assets, and because, generally speaking, ports are significant employment generators, investment in the port and its future development would have first claim on the use of its transferred assets when owned and controlled by a representative body of that kind."
  That is not a revolutionary or unique statement, but a common sense approach to the development of community infrastructures when resources become available. Irrespective of their ideological support or opposition to the sale of public assets, all hon. Members should agree that the beneficiaries of such sales should be the community in which the sale takes place.
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend touches on an important topic. About .£40.5 million is being taken out of the Tees and Hartlepool community and about £16.25 million is being taken out of the Clyde community. The figures may not be accurate, but money is being taken out by the Government rather than put in.
  Mr. McCartney: The levy is rather like a big vacuum cleaner, sucking up resources placed on the market by a local company. There is double taxation because not only is there a 50 per cent. levy on the perceived capital value of the company but there is another tax rake-off. As the hon. Members for Stockton, South and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have said, in practice the 50 per cent. tax climbs to a rate of 100 or 110 per cent. That is to be imposed by a Government who say that they are the Government of low taxation, who will remove taxation from the backs of business and allow it freedom to invest and develop in the community.
  810
  In reality, the Government cannot keep their greedy mitts off assets that have been built up in communities over more than a century. They see an opportunity to seize resources for party political purposes in the run-up to the general election. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) said, "Nonsense." I will give way if he wishes to contribute to the debate. My hon. Friends and I stayed for many hours last week to assist him in his forlorn campaign to prevent the import of thousands of tonnes of South African coal, although the hon. Gentleman's opposition to that had more to do with saving his seat than with anything else.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should have been looking this way. I did not say "Nonsense".
  Mr. McCartney: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is sitting behind the hon. Member for Sherwood. Is he asleep? The hon. Member for Dover is the sleaze factor of the Conservative party in the south-east.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: He was bombed out of the Carlton Club last week.
  Mr. McCartney: He will certainly be bombed out at the next election.
  New clauses 67 to 72 are no more than a token gesture by the Government and a sop to reduce Opposition arguments against the privatisation of ports. We shall not fall for that. We start from the premise that, as a matter of principle, the ports should not be privatised. But if they are to be privatised, the resources from the sales must remain with the successor companies and the communities in which they operate. It is therefore vital that hon. Members on both sides who believe in the propriety of the House and its ability to resist manipulation by the Executive should reject the motion.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that manipulation of the House is exactly what the Tory Government have in mind? Even at this moment the Tory Whips are telephoning the sleepy brigade of the Tory majority to come in and support a closure. Not only are the Government driving the resolution through the House with inadequate information based on clauses not yet considered by the Standing Committee that is considering the Finance Bill but they are using their ruthless majority to drive it through the House.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not the first time that we have been here late at night discussing legislation in which the Government are manipulating the procedures of the House for party political ends. They are continually manipulating the House. After 11 years in government they treat the House and its Members with utter contempt. As a relatively new Member of the House, I sometimes feel that the rights of Back-Bench Members, from whatever party, are cynically put aside for the purposes of the Executive to control business and the nature of the business. The Government treat the House as no more than a rubber stamp for their activities.
  Mr. Bell: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend commented on the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Here we are dealing with an important debate which will affect the

  811
  future of our local communities and certainly of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Yet we face the possible closure of the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the motion before the House.
  Mr. McCartney: I cannot comment on the closure of the debate but it will not be the first time that the Government or the Conservative party have sought to use the procedures of the House to close a debate in which Opposition Members wished to speak. They have also tried to keep the hon. Member for Sherwood quiet in his opposition to ports measures that have come before the House on previous occasions.
  Mr. James Pawsey: I cannot understand a word the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  Mr. McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to give way to him because he cannot understand what I am saying?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the motion before the House.
  Mr. McCartney: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is a bit rich when hon. Members who have been in the dungeons downstairs meander in here and criticise me from a sedentary position. Some Opposition Members have spent a considerable number of hours here and have invested their whole lives in port communities and the protection of those communities. We do not lightly take lessons from rum-filled Conservative Members. If they wish to speak, let them get up and do so, but I will not be put off by sedentary comments from them.
  The position is clear. The Government are attempting to use this Ways and Means procedure to facilitate the privatisation of at least 50 trust ports in Britain. But in facilitating the privatisation—this is more sinister than the privatisation—they are gathering to themselves literally hundreds of millions of pounds of public assets which should remain in the community, to be used for the Government's own purposes and dissipated on their pet projects. The money will not be ploughed back into the community from which the resources came in the first place.
  For those reasons, Opposition Members will divide the House at the end of the debate and oppose the Government's proposals, and in the Standing Committee tomorrow we shall oppose the Government in all their attempts to gather up and steal, Dick Turpin fashion, the resources that were deployed in communities.
  Mr. Pawsey: Sit down.
  Mr. McCartney: I am sitting down.
  12.35 am
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am glad to be able to take up some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). He has great knowledge of the matters that we are discussing because of his Transport and General Workers Union background
  812
  and his personal experience. His contribution encapsulated a series of important arguments of which the House should not lose sight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield talked about confiscatory taxation and then advanced an equally sound argument when he referred to the undervaluation of Associated British Ports. The Government may have brought the resolution before the House—it deals with market values—because of that undervaluation. It is a subject that will be discussed tomorrow when the Finance Bill is discussed in Committee.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury talked about the previous money resolution and the Ways and Means resolution that is before us in terms of retrospection and the privatisation of Associated British Ports. He talked earlier about the unfair advantage that would be given to the new ports if the proposed taxation were not to be applied. As I understand it, the taxation will not be retrospective to include ABP. Who is losing out in the new confiscatory taxation that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield described?
  In a series of interventions in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield an effort was made by Opposition Members to draw attention to ring fencing and the sums that would be raised by the proposed taxation. The Financial Secretary mentioned under his breath when I made my first intervention that public expenditure was not beneficial to the community. It seemed that that response ended with a question mark. Public expenditure is beneficial to the community, and the Labour party is the party that seeks to increase public expenditure for the benefit of the community. The effect of the resolution will be to take money away from local communities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield compared the resolution with local government resolutions and referred especially to housing. He is right that only 20 per cent. of receipts of council housing sales are allowed to be used by the local community.
  Mr. McCartney: There are land sales as well and other assets which local authorities have to dispose of from time to time. When the Conservative party came to power, 100 per cent. of capital receipts could be utilised by local authorities for other developments in the community as long as that was approved by the Department of the Environment. There has been a reduction to 20 per cent., and the Government—these rogues—take the rest of it.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has demonstrated once again his knowledge of the workings of local government. As he said earlier—I have made the same point—money is being taken from local communities and it is not being replaced. There is no specific public expenditure in the areas of Tees and Hartlepool that he and I represent as a result of the privatisation that we have been considering. I am reminded of the North sea oil asset sales that have taken place over the past 10 years. About £70,000 million have found their way into the funds of the nation without being ring fenced.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if we were to consider one industry at a time.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back to the subject of the debate.

  813
  The new clauses that will be considered in Committee tomorrow will not result in the ring fencing of the assets that will be subject to taxation. I am glad that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who spoke earlier, has remained in his place. I once congratulated him on a sensible statement that he made in Committee and he produced a leaflet which contained my response. He circulated in throughout his constituency to ensure that his electorate knew what I had said about him. Therefore, tonight, I shall not extend to him my congratulations on his declared intention not to support the Government should we divide the House.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South made an important reference to the value of the shares connected with the Tees and Hartlepool port. He said that the promoters had suggested that the port's assets would be sold to local pension funds among others. There is no guarantee about that in the Ways and Means resolution or in the private Bill.
  Dr. Godman: In the absence of guarantees on the local pension funds and local shareholders, the present board of the Clyde port authority, all of whom live close to the river, may eventually be supplanted by people who have no commitment to the Clyde and its maritime industries.
  Mr. Bell: That possibility is referred to in the Ways and Means resolution when it speaks of a levy on
  "companies which control such companies".
  The Government anticipate that the control of the Clyde port authority and that of the Tees and Hartlepool authority will end up in the hands of multinational companies elsewhere or, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South said, on the stock exchange. Those ports will then be floated and taken over by outside people. No guarantee has been given about the ability of local pension funds and local citizens to purchase shares.
  Earlier the Financial Secretary said that the shares will be sold to workers, but how does he know?
  Mr. Lilley: Provision in the clauses allows for up to 3 per cent. of the shares to be sold to the workers without affecting the proceeds liable to levy.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for that significant revelation—
  Mr. Lilley: Up to 3 per cent. of the shares can be given to the workers without affecting the proceeds liable to levy.
  Mr. Bell: That is an interesting correction.
  We have no guarantee that any of the work force in Cleveland and the Tees and Hartlepool areas will be able to benefit from a purchase. It is clear from the new clauses that the Government intend to introduce, facilitated by the Ways and Means resolution, that directors of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority will be unable to help themselves to shares in the successor company without those shares being levied at the market value. I am not entirely sure whether that shows great confidence in the directors on the part of the Government. Is it anticipated that the directors will give themselves shares at less than the fair market value? The Government have certainly covered that possible eventuality.
  The hon. Member for Stockport, South said that about 30 per cent. corporation tax would be levied on the value of the assets. I understand from the Minister that 35 per cent. corporation tax will be levied.
  Mr. Devlin: Since I made my earlier statement, I have learnt that 25 per cent.—not 35 per cent.—corporation tax will be levied. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that later.
  Mr. Bell: I am not entirely sure why corporation tax should be levied at that lower rate instead of at the rate of 35 per cent. mentioned by the Minister.
  If the resolution is passed, followed by the new clauses in Committee, the Government will take £30 million of the £60 million assets of the Tees and Hartlepool authority. On 35 per cent. of the remaining £30 million, the Government will take another £10.5 million—
  Mr. Devlin: The hon. Member is misconstruing the figures. We are talking about flotation and hence about the tax on the market value of the shares, not on the existing assets. That is an important distinction.
  Mr. Bell: We have always been told that the assets are worth £58 million which will be converted into shares which will then be sold to pension funds, to the work force and to other interested parties as yet unknown. People on Teesside believe that the Government will take 50 per cent., which is almost £30 million. Assuming the figures given by the Financial Secretary tonight, £10.5 million more will be taken away, too. So, of assets worth £60 million, the Government will take £40.5 million. I am sure that, when launching their enterprise, the promoters of the Bill never guessed that that would happen.
  Given that the Government will take £40.5 million of the £60 million, how many years does the Financial Secretary think will have to pass before the port's asset base returns to what it is today? How much profit will it have to make to restore the difference?
  Mr. McCartney: To make up the shortfall, is it not more likely that the port will have to sell some assets which it does not need in the short term but which it might want to retain for development in the future? The port might have earmarked surplus land for such development, but it might be told to sell the land, which has a huge market value, for housing development and so on.
  Mr. Bell: That is a valid point. There will have to be asset sales to make up the shortfall. So instead of privatisation giving Tees and Hartlepool control over its own destiny, it will lose control of it—and of its assets. That can only be to the disadvantage of the port. It will certainly make it more difficult for the port to develop as it should.
  Tees and Hartlepool handles the third largest tonnage in the country; Clyde handles the 10th largest, and has a work force of about 350. It is profitable and does not rely on Government subsidies.
  Earlier, the Financial Secretary said that privatising these ports would allow them to build on their capital bases. But we have discovered that 50 per cent., followed by 35 per cent., of that capital base will be taken away from them. The Minister said that this was a matter of judgment, and so it is, but it is strange that the Treasury can take 50 per cent. of the assets of a port authority on its privatisation—
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government were so eager to take the opportunity to plunder these ports that they got 172 Tory Members to vote on the private Bill earlier tonight, but that because they expected these motions to go through on the nod the

  815
  number of Tory Members has gone down to just over 100 and the Government are busy telephoning around the conglomeration of soon-to-be-discarded junior Ministers asking them to come in?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the motion.
  Mr. Bell: I shall follow your counsel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) along that line.
  I was interested in the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the trust ports belong to the state. He prayed in aid the High Court. I have no idea which judgment he wished to refer to. I am sure that, even as a financial rather than a transport Minister, he must know that the term "trust port" goes back many years—certainly back to the 1930s—and was used by the Rochdale committee, which examined the nature of trust ports and their development in the 1960s. For all those years, it has been understood that such ports are held in trust for the local community.
  Mr. McCartney: Even if the Financial Secretary's predictions are correct, and the ports are owned by the state, that should not give it the right to asset-strip their resources. That is the sort of activity that goes on in Stalinist economies; it is not what one would expect from a western-style democracy.
  Mr. Bell: The Financial Secretary's speech and my hon. Friend's intervention remind me of the Trustee Savings bank, which was mentioned earlier. Its assets were worth £1 billion and the Government decided not to take a single penny but allowed the £1 billion to go straight into the financial markets, into the City of London, out in more plastic cards and bigger take-over bids, with no significant benefit to the community, to the manufacturing sector or to the local community. Yet, when the Government see an opportunity to take £30 million from the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and a similar large sum from the Clyde port authority, they are there like a shot.
  One can imagine why we are debating this resolution tonight. We know of the great difficulties that the Government have in finding £3.5 billion to make up for the errors and the foolishness of the poll tax provisions and further likely expenditure requirements next year. Some £30 million from Tees and Hartlepool is a useful adjunct to raising money for that purpose.
  There are some 50 trust ports. Perhaps the Financial Secretary can give us some information on them. As a result of the Ways and Means resolution, at least £100 million will be taken out of local communities up and down the country. That is a significant sum of money which we should debate on the Floor of the House tonight.
  The Financial Secretary made a series of points in justification of the resolution. Most of them were spurious, and I am sure that he will not mind my telling him so. He said that the Treasury would take a higher share and that he thought that that was to the taxpayer's benefit. He talked of a level playing field—an interesting concept that we hear about time and again. I heard an east German business man talking of level playing fields on the television only yesterday morning.
  816
  The Financial Secretary also talked of the unfair commercial advantage which he felt might go to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority or to the Clyde port authority. But I believe that Associated British Ports did not have to pay the 50 per cent. levy that is being imposed tonight. He also talked of a lower Exchequer share and of not penalising Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde because of their privatisation.
  Mr. Devlin: I urge the hon. Gentleman to draw his speech to a close. He is digging himself into a deep hole. He is drawing a comparison with Associated British Ports, but it paid 100 per cent., not 50 per cent. The robbery was worse.
  Mr. Bell: I am aware of the adage of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that when in a hole, one should stop digging. If I am in a hole, I shall immediately throw out the shovel.
  I am reciting the weaknesses in the arguments of the Financial Secretary when he sought to explain why 50 per cent. of the assets of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority will be taken away. He mentioned a 35 per cent. corporation tax. He was modest and sensible and I sympathised with him when he said that he was never sure of anything. I can well imagine that, in his position, that is a proper attitude to take.
  The Financial Secretary said that, on balance, 50 per cent. was about the right figure. I shall explain later why I do not believe that that is a proper and valid figure. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who served with me on Newcastle city council, has grown in stature since he came to the House. He is handling the Opposition's case in Committee on the Finance Bill. He rightly said that there was not a word about this new taxation in the Budget or on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. He mentioned the abuse of the private Bill procedure, to which we have referred on several occasions.
  The Financial Secretary said that privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authorities was the wish of the companies. I must enlighten him. Until the former Secretary of State for Transport said that it was the Government's wish to take the privatisation route for the ports, the idea had never dawned upon the port authorities. It was the idea of the former Secretary of State for Transport, not the wish of the members of the boards.
  The resolution is intended to clear the way for the Government to participate, if not in the sale of the century, certainly in the bargain of the century. The taking of £30 million of the assets of Tees and Hartlepool is nothing short of the Treasury getting its sticky fingers on our assets.
  Mr. Humfrey Matins: Sit down.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman must be patient; I have not yet begun my main speech. We are here not only to hold the Government accountable, but to probe them and to elucidate a whole series of reports from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I shall patiently build upon my speech within the rules of order and under the guidance of Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We are witnessing the bargain of the century. The Treasury is getting its sticky fingers on £30 million of the assets of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, which

  817
  has yet to be privatised, and an additional £70 million from other port authorities, including the Clyde port authority—which we debated earlier—and other trust ports when they move from trust status to the private domain.
  I am sorry that the Minister of Aviation and Shipping, who was here earlier, is no longer in his place. He may be—
  Mr. Tim Boswell: My hon. Friend is here.
  Mr. Bell: The Minister has moved precipitately from the Front Bench to the Back Bench. He may be anticipating the events of 16 and 17 July. He may be one of those Ministers who needs to worry about his future, or—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should get on with the debate about the motion.
  Mr. Bell: —he may be in line for promotion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the motion.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir. I hope that the Minister can hold his breath long enough. According to the Minister, whom I am glad to see here, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority made a pre-tax profit of £9.2 million in 1988 on a turnover of £35.5 million. Whatever the differences that I may have with the authority, I regard that as a commendable record so commendable that the Government intend to modify their Finance Bill, through this resolution, to take a share of the spoils.
  I trust that you will pardon me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if tonight you hear a series of epithets, metaphors and possibly mixed metaphors to describe the Government's actions in relation to the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authorities. The English language is hard put to describe what has been variously called "barefaced robbery", "getting their grubby hands on the community's money"—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield—and "daylight robbery". Lawyers say that there is not much difference between "barefaced" and "daylight" robbery. They amount to one and the same thing. In this case, the robbery is both daylight and barefaced. It is an asset stripping exercise by the Treasury to deprive any successor company to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority of £30 million plus taxation.
  What hope is there for the country when the asset strippers are alive and well not only among the conglomerates and the rip-off merchants but in the heart of the Treasury? Essentially, the Ways and Means resolution will enable the Government to incorporate into the Finance Bill new clauses 67 and 68. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has referred to them, but it is clear that if the motion is passed, those new clauses will be before the Committee tomorrow. I was intrigued by the fact that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) did not appear on the Amendment Paper, although the hon. Member for Stockton, South has told us that they will be by tomorrow. The proposal of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight would reduce the 50 per cent. to be taken by the Government to 40 per cent. That would be a small and interesting concession.
  818
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us whether he will accept those amendments. We understand, and it has been confirmed on several occasions, that the new clauses to the Finance Bill will be tabled if the resolution is passed, and will be debated by the Committee tomorrow afternoon. If that is the case, I can only advise my hon. Friends who are serving on the Committee to block this money-grabbing exercise by the Treasury.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked us what the Opposition would do in a similar situation, with a similar resolution. He reminded me of the story of the general who asked Napoleon, "What would you do if you had the enemy to the left of you, the enemy to the right of you, the enemy to the front of you and the enemy to the back of you? How would you get out of that?". Napoleon replied, "I would not get into it." The Opposition would not be privatising the ports, nor having the House debate, at 1 o'clock in the morning, a money resolution that allows the Government to take 50 per cent. of the profit from the Tees and Hartlepool and other port authorities. Nor would we have a Financial Secretary trying to evade most of the points put to him.
  One can sympathise with the Government in seeking to bring such resolutions before the House and for seeking to get their hands on every penny—or every new fivepenny piece—that is going. As we read in the newspapers, even the peace dividend will not be safe in their hands and will be used, along with the money raised by tonight's resolution, to cushion another disastrous round of poll tax payments in the next financial year. Every penny, every £30 million, every £100 million and every confiscatory piece of taxation counts.
  We all know that in the short term the Ways and Means resolution is aimed at the proposed privatisation of the assets of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. In the longer term it is also aimed at the assets of the Clyde port authority. Watching your expression with great attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not lead the House into a debate on the merits or otherwise of the Government's insistence on using private Bills for public Bill purposes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East mentioned earlier, we are not here to debate the merits or otherwise of the privatisation. Conservative Members may aid and abet a willing Government to privatise our assets through the private Bill procedure, but that is a matter for them.
  Even the Leader of the House has published a document on changes in private Bill procedures. We shall not go down that route either, but a glimpse at the reasoning behind the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority will quickly explain why we are debating the Ways and Means resolution tonight.
  I have one question for the Financial Secretary about Tees and Hartlepool. As the Treasury wishes to acquire 50 per cent. of its assets, does it really wish the privatised authority to compete with Associated British Ports and Felixstowe, which are already privatised? Why is the port of Tees and Hartlepool being penalised compared with other ports already in the private sector? The Financial Secretary gave a somewhat oblique response when he said that he did not want the Tees and Hartlepool port authority or the Clyde port authority to have an unfair advantage. That seems rather an odd way to make that point.
  The Ways and Means resolution refers to the amounts of money that the Government will raise. The Government

  819
  seem to believe that they can pass the Ways and Means resolution and take 50 per cent. of the assets of Tees and Hartlepool because many years ago they made a grant to the Tees and Hartlepool. No such grant has been made since 1980. One of the first things that the Government did when they took office was to prevent any further grants being made to the Tees and Hartlepool.
  Even the Minister for Aviation and Shipping had to accept on the Second Reading of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill on 15 March:
  "Admittedly it is a long time since such grants were paid to the THPA, and the amounts were small".
  One should pause there for a moment. I warned you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the number of metaphors that might fly your way this evening, and we have all heard the phrase, "From little acorns mighty oaks grow". It is quite remarkable that, following small grants 20 years ago to Tees and Hartlepool to facilitate the building of certain assets, the Government boldly assert to the House that they will take 50 per cent. of all assets of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority as a result of the Ways and Means resolution. The Minister continued:
  "But the grants were paid about 20 years ago towards investment projects in the port, and some of those assets are still in use."—[Official Report, 15 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 749.]
  It is strange that some of the assets are still in use. The Government are seeking to get not 50 per cent. of the value of those assets but 50 per cent. of all assets, which is remarkable.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Minister did not touch on the allowable deductions from the 50 per cent. rate of levy. He included a long list contained in new clause 68, such as fees, commissions and remuneration paid for professional services. Given the huge sums that the Government have paid for professional services, does my hon. Friend agree that it should be more adequately defined?
  Mr. Bell: I agree with my hon. Friend. I did not want to quote chapter and verse from the new clauses, but we have noticed the reticence of the Financial Secretary, who went so quickly through his notes that I could not keep up with him in my inimitable shorthand. I hope that Hansard had a better chance to note what he said.
  The Ways and Means resolution will enable the Government not to levy on grants paid against specific investment projects or even specific assets. It will, however, entitle them to 50 per cent. of the assets of all investment projects, whether or not they were financed by the Government 20 years ago or during that period or later by the port authority.
  Between 1964 and 1980, as a trust port, Tees and Hartlepool could borrow from the Government, but since 1980 it has had to raise its finances on the money markets. The resolution makes no distinction.
  I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). We had great difficulty in Committee in distinguishing whether he was the hon. Member for Hinchliffe or for Wakefield. If I may upset his sense of humour again, may I say that, rather like the mills of God, the Treasury grinds exceeding slow, but it grinds exceeding small, though with patience it stands waiting, with exactness grinds it all? For such small sums of money,
  820
  paid in investment grant so many years ago, the Treasury will gain a benefit—I should say a windfall—for the Consolidated Fund of £30 million from the Tees and Hartlepool. As I said earlier, about £100 million will flow from the other privatisation measures.
  The Financial Secretary touched on that in his opening remarks. He talked about the taxpayer and the benefit to the taxpayer. Perhaps the taxpayer should be happy; perhaps the Treasury should be congratulated; perhaps it is all part of the Government's privatisation drive; perhaps the proceeds will now be considered as the proceeds of privatisation. The Financial Secretary nods his head. Is he saying that the money that goes into the Consolidated Fund as a result of this 50 per cent. levy is part of the proceeds of privatisation? Will it be so treated in the Treasury books? Will it appear in the forecasts in the Autumn Statement as part of the privatisation proceeds? What of a local community such as Teesside? What of my constituents of Middlesbrough? What of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)? What of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter)? What of the constituents of the hon. Member for Stockton, South? We have seen the Clyde and the Tees and Hartlepool authorities grow. We have seen the goods going in and out. We look askance at 1992 and all that that means for the port. As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield asked, why cannot that money be retained by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority? It does not need to be privatised. Why cannot that money be made available for the whole community? Why do we need this motion?
  We hear a great deal about ring fencing and the earmarking of grants, but by abandoning the motion and then abandoning the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill we would ensure that the port authority's assets did not disappear into the maw of the Consolidated Fund but would be available to the community as a direct and easily calculable benefit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield referred to the Opposed Private Bill Committee and told us the view of the Transport and General Workers Union. Why cannot the money be invested in better port facilities to meet the challenges of 1992? Why cannot the money be used to create useful work for the skilled work force on Teesside? Why cannot the money be used for the regeneration of Teesside, which would be a joy and pride to us all? In those circumstances, the motion would not even have to be debated.
  The Minister for Aviation and Shipping is rather ubiquitous, but he is still on the Floor of the House. On 15 March 1990, when trying to explain himself to the House, he said:
  "There is a general rule that, when assets acquired or improved by a non-Exchequer body with the aid of Government grants are disposed of, an appropriate proportion of the proceeds should go to the Exchequer."
  I submit that 50 per cent. is not an appropriate sum to be taken by the state. By any stretch of the imagination, 50 per cent. of the assets can hardly be described as appropriate.
  Mr. McCartney: We are talking about 50 per cent. of the market value of the assets. The most iniquitous aspect of the proposal is that the perceived market value of the company's assets is not necessarily the sale price at flotation.
  Mr. Bell: That is an important point. In response to an intervention, the Financial Secretary said that the expenses were those associated with valuations of what was or was not the market value.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: This seems to be an odd kind of privatisation scheme. Naturally the Government are hellbent on privatisation in many ways. I heard the exchange involving the Financial Secretary when reference was made to a substantial rake-off, which was said to be well over 50 per cent. in terms of taxes. On the basis of ex-Cabinet Ministers joining the board of privatised companies to get a big fat salary—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Skinner: Hear me out, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not hear the hon. Member out if he is not in order. He seems to be going far from the motion.
  Mr. Skinner: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The burden of the debate has been about the Government taking a rake-off from these companies in taxation and so on. It has been suggested that that could amount to well over 50 per cent., based on capital gains and the rest. We now know that one ex-Minister joins the board of most privatised companies. Clearly, the Financial Secretary has not considered the matter properly. If he is the bod who is to get a job on one of the privatised port authorities, he should bear in mind that there will not be enough money for him—certainly not enough money—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone far enough. Mr. Bell.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), although I suspect that the Financial Secretary has a political career ahead of him rather than a career on a board of directors. I am sure that he has great expectations as 17 July appears on the horizon.
  Let me again refer to the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who is so ubiquitous that I cannot see him. He has drifted from the Front Bench to the Back Benches or out of the Chamber altogether. Like the competent Minister he has become, the hon. Gentleman duly reached for an appropriate fig leaf to disguise what the Government were doing and to seek to give this Ways and Means resolution some semblance of dignity and decency. On 15 March, he said that the Public Accounts Committee rightly attached great importance to the principle that, where grant money has been given to a particular enterprise, the Treasury has a right to an appropriate return on the investment. It is the House rather than the Public Accounts Committee which is debating the resolution tonight, but I will wager with the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, when he comes back to the House, and even the Financial Secretary, deep in thought as he is, that the PAC has never said that it considers 50 per cent. of an asset value an appropriate return on any investment—never mind an investment of such small proportions made 20 years ago.
  Mr. McCartney: We are not talking about 50 per cent. of the disposal price or 50 per cent. of the value of the orginal investment in terms of grant. We are talking about 50 per cent. of the market value of the assets disposed of.
  822
  That is considerably in excess of any minimal amount of grant provided 20 years ago. The Government are not getting a return on their capital; they are getting an excessive return on an asset in which they did not invest in the first place. It is called asset stripping.
  Mr. Bell: I said earlier that the Government are asset stripping in a way that would make other asset strippers blush with shame.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover referred to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There is a clear confusion between the Financial Secretary, who is responsible for financial matters, and the Secretary of State for Transport, who is responsible for transport, and I am trying to elicit the precise difference between the two with my references to the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
  As I said, the 50 per cent. taken by the Government as a result of the Ways and Means resolution may be described as extortionate; it can never be described as appropriate.
  The Ways and Means resolution is part of a double sleight of hand by the Government. First, it ensures that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority will be privatised under a private, rather than a public, Bill. Secondly, it ensures that the Bill cannot be described as a hybrid Bill because the Government have tabled new clauses to the Finance Bill.
  I pray in aid again not the logic of the situation, which speaks for itself, but the words of the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. The hon. Gentleman is probably right to have left the House as I do not know that my words will assist his career or the events that may take place on 17 July. On 15 March, he said:
  "If the Bill"—
  the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill—
  "were amended to provide expressly for a share of the proceeds to go to the Exchequer, it would cease to be a private Bill. There would then be the problem of accommodating it within the Government's legislative programme, to which I have already referred."—[Official Report, 15 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 749.]
  The Minister confirmed to the House that here was a public Bill on a private Bill route which required the modification of the Finance Bill to take into account its financial provisions. If that is not a perversion of the procedures of this House, I do not know what is. 'The Minister is to be congratulated on his lucid honesty. There was nothing opaque about the Government's intention. It is simple straigthforward chicanery, and they have subverted the procedures of the House in this Ways and Means resolution tonight by treating a public Bill like a private Bill and a modified Finance Bill like a hybrid Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow sat through the charade earlier this evening called the Third Reading of the Clyde Port Authority Bill. He will no doubt understand the points that I am making on behalf of his constituency.
  Mr. Skinner: Have we gone into extra time yet?
  Mr. Bell: Extra time is for penalties, and we will have to see whether the penalty taker is up to it.
  Other trust ports might be tempted to take the privatisation route. The hon. Member for Stockton, South earlier made a valid intervention in the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he referred to the Ways and Means resolution and the 50 per cent. of market

  823
  value that the Government will take and corporation tax of 35 per cent. on top of that. The hon. Member for Stockton, South wanted to know what incentive there would be for other ports to follow the privatisation route. Why should other ports follow that route and see the Government take their asset values by way of taxation through the impost or levy? Should they follow that route because of a vague element of competition among themselves so that they can invest in ports in Europe or buy our smaller ports in this country? Why should they follow the privatisation route once they know that the Government will take 50 per cent. of the money?
  The former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), did not hint when he proposed the privatisation of the ports through the private Bill route that that should be achieved in such a way that the Government should have 50 per cent. of the assets.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that that was not mentioned in the Budget speech or on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. The Government did not mention it when discussing private legislation and it was not mentioned when we were discussing public legislation either.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. We are considering a new tax. The Government are introducing in this Ways and Means resolution the second new tax in the past year. They have introduced the poll tax and they are now introducing this new tax on the assets of our ports.
  At least some small service has been served by this resolution. The House is entitled to know whether on each privatisation of each trust port, whether through the private or public Bill route, we are to have similar resolutions before the House; or will the new clauses to the Finance Bill to which I have referred, hopefully suitably amended by the amounts tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, be repeated in Finance Bills in future? In short, are we debating a blanket resolution covering future privatisation of ports? I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will consider those matters when he replies.
  I want to bring my comments to a close so that other hon. Members may make useful contributions to the debate. Teesside and its community will be worse off as a result of this motion if it is passed tonight. Those who work for the authority will not be heartened by the knowledge that the Government have an eye on the assets that they have built up over the years—assets not just of bricks and mortar, but of toil and sweat. The workers' investment in their workplace has been life long. They have been sadly and severely damaged by the abolition of the dock labour scheme. They will be further damaged by the privatisation of Tees and Hartlepool, and they will be undermined by this motion. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the motion.
  1.32 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Hon. Members should examine the motion with great care. As occurred earlier, we have seen demonstrated, as lawyers say, beyond peradventure the way in which the Government have tried to deceive the House in how this legislative process is being
  824
  undertaken. It is accepted that this is a taxation measure. A Ways and Means resolution is a common requirement of a taxation measure. As was said in a useful outline of the position, the measure was not announced in any manifesto, the Finance Bill or the Budget. There has been an attempt to slip the measure through the back door.
  Fortunately, due to the vigilance of the Opposition, the Government's ploy has been exposed. If we had depended on the Minister, we should have had virtually no information at all. Bit by bit, it was revealed that the basis of the resolution is a component not of the Finance Bill but of the new clauses that were tabled for discussion in Standing Committee E tomorrow. The Government assumed that the Committee would approve the new clauses. It is offensive and arrogant for the Government to make that assumption. When hon. Members are to consider a subject on the Whip the following week, how many hon. Members actually pick up copies of new clauses, tabled in relation to a Ways and Means resolution, to be dealt with in Committee the following week? Normally, hon. Members go to the Vote Office, as I did, and get hold of a copy of the Finance Bill. In the Finance Bill there is no information about the resolution. It is a monumental evasion of convention that hon. Members should have no information available.
  I am grateful to Mr. Deputy Speaker for saying that we could discuss the new clauses. That is an important component of our debate, and must necessarily be so. In the ordinary course of events, it would be left to the Standing Committee, which would then report to the House on alterations to the Bill, including any new clauses. However, because of the special circumstances, we have perforce to refer to the new clauses.
  Mr. Beith: The position is worse than the hon. Gentleman has described. If he had gone to the Vote Office on Friday morning and picked up a copy of the amendments then tabled, he would have found that no new clause of this nature had been tabled. If he had made further inquiries, he would have discovered that there had been one but that it had been withdrawn. Only if he had been in the Public Bill Office in the last moments of Friday would he have discovered that the Government rushed back to table the new clauses.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. He is a member of Standing Committee E and has been taking an interest, as members of the Committee normally do. Only a tiny proportion of hon. Members are on a Standing Committee at any given time. Having a knowledge of proceedings on the Finance Bill, and knowing that the clauses were previously tabled but were withdrawn, the hon. Gentleman would naturally know more than the vast majority of hon. Members who are not on the Finance Bill Committee. The hon. Gentleman is right—it is a dodge to withdraw the new clauses and then to retable them at the very last minute on Friday. My original assertion, which the Minister disputed, that it would be extremely difficult for hon. Members to take the information home with them over the weekend is correct. Even hon. Members who were here until the last moment of Friday's sitting would have had difficulty in doing that.
  Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Minister is lying?
  Mr. Cryer: I would not go as far as that. I am saying that the Minister was certainly being economical with the truth when he maintained that hon. Members could get the information to enable them to debate the money resolution and the Ways and Means resolution, because that patently was not the case.
  New clause 68 shows the purposes for which the levy is to be used. The Ways and Means resolution gives authority for the levy to be made and new clause 68 excludes certain expenditure from that levy. If the clause is accepted by the Committee and becomes part of the Finance Act, those will be statutory exclusions and for that reason, we must discuss them. According to new clause 68(3)(a), they are
  "fees, commissions or remuneration paid for professional services".
  That is the first item, but there are three others.
  It is alarming that in opening the debate the Minister did not touch on any of those items. It is encouraging that such expenditure will require statutory approval. In a recent Adjournment debate I raised the issue of the sale of skill centres. One of the scandals about that giveaway was that Deloitte Haskins and Sells received £500,000 in fees for professional services, which included marketing and valuation services. Subsection (3)(d) of new clause 68 deals precisely with that because it mentions
  "expenses reasonably incurred in ascertaining the market value of the securities disposed of."
  That is exactly the area that was critically examined. I and many people thought that the fees paid for those professional services were excessive. The resolution in conjunction with new clause 68 encourages expenditure in such areas by giving statutory exemptions from payment of the levy. It includes costs of transfer and advertising.
  I am amazed that the Minister did not mention the expenditure that the Government have in mind. For example, is it the lavish expenditure on professional services and advertising in which the Government have been engaged? Will they put down guidelines? The Government frequently do that in all sorts of areas. When they pass primary legislation—as in this case—they issue guidelines that become almost laws in themselves to, for example, the trust ports. They are simply the instructions of a Minister to a civil servant, or from a civil servant to a Minister to say yes to the provision of guidance on the amount of expenditure that can be incurred.
  The levy is the specific provision in the resolution. There are penalties. The levy can be varied by the Minister by way of statutory instrument. That is in new clause 68. The Minister talks about the levy being 50 per cent. However, if the new clause is passed, it will be subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments. That is better than the negative procedure.
  Mr. Skinner: What is that?
  Mr. Cryer: It is where one has to table a prayer in order simply to obtain time for a debate. The Minister and all hon. Members present know that in the affirmative procedure, unless hon. Members object—
  Mr. Skinner: The Minister is asleep.
  Mr. Cryer: Under the affirmative procedure, unless hon. Members object, the matter can be dealt with in what is called a merits committee.
  Mr. Skinner: The Minister knows what happened to Lawson: he fell asleep and got sacked.
  Mr. Cryer: Often few hon. Members turn up for discussions in merits committees—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must not keep calling out from a sedentary position and interrupting his hon. Friend, and he knows that he must not.
  Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cryer: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. Skinner: If Mr. Deputy Speaker will allow me. I was pointing out to my hon. Friend and others that the Minister had dropped to sleep two or three times during my hon. Friend's speech. I wondered whether my hon. Friend thought that it was right and proper that while he was making important points about taxation the Financial Secretary was dropping off. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dropped off to sleep and six months later he got the sack. I was being fair to the Minister. I was pointing out that he might follow in the same fashion. That is all that I was saying.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I thought that that was the drift of the interchange that was taking place. I was alarmed to find the Minister dozing off in the middle of my speech when I was making important points. It is characteristic of the Government's arrogant behaviour towards the House. The Minister made a nominal speech. He read out his brief virtually word for word. He finished it in five or six minutes, packed up and expects the motion to go through the House on the nod. The Government have had a bit of a jolt tonight. We have been exercising the vigilance that an Opposition should exercise—
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
  Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. McCartney(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You did not call a Division. No Division was called.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was not listening.
  The House having divided: Ayes 1, Noes 123.

  Division No. 276]

  [11.07 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Allason, Rupert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amess, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cran, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowis, John

  Day, Stephen

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Devlin, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bright, Graham

  Durant, Tony

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fallon, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  794

  Forth, Eric

  Moate, Roger

  Franks, Cecil

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Freeman, Roger

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Gale, Roger

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gill, Christopher

  Neubert, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gow, Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Paice, James

  Ground, Patrick

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hague, William

  Pawsey, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Price, Sir David

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Harris, David

  Redwood, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Irvine, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jack, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Stevens, Lewis

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Knapman, Roger

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Knowles, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Lightbown, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lilley, Peter

  Thorne, Neil

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Maclean, David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Mitchell, Sir David

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Beith, A. J.

  McCartney, Ian

  Bell, Stuart

  McFall, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Carr, Michael

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Cryer, Bob

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Don

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Wallace, James

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Haynes, Frank

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mr. George Buckley and

  Home Robertson, John

  Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Division No. 277]

  [1.42 am

  AYES

  Ashby, David

  Mr. Neil Hamilton and

  Mr. Harry Bellingham.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bell, Stuart

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Allason, Rupert

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bright, Graham

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Beith, A. J.

  Budgen, Nicholas

  827

  Burt, Alistair

  Knapman, Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Knowles, Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lightbown, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Lilley, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lord, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Maclean, David

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Day, Stephen

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Devlin, Tim

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Dixon, Don

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Durant, Tony

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Fallon, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Forth, Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Neubert, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Freeman, Roger

  Norris, Steve

  Gale, Roger

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Paice, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Patnick, Irvine

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Pawsey, James

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Redwood, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Ground, Patrick

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hague, William

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Harris, David

  Stern, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Stevens, Lewis

  Haynes, Frank

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hayward, Robert

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Viggers, Peter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Wood, Timothy

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Irvine, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jack, Michael

  Mr. Patrick Thompson and

  Janman, Tim

  Mr. James Cran.

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 11.

  Division No. 278]

  [1.52 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Allason, Rupert

  Bright, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chope, Christopher

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bowis, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  828

  Cran, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lord, Michael

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Maclean, David

  Day, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Devlin, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Durant, Tony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fallon, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Forth, Eric

  Moate, Roger

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Franks, Cecil

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Freeman, Roger

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  Neubert, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gill, Christopher

  Norris, Steve

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Paice, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pawsey, James

  Ground, Patrick

  Redwood, John

  Hague, William

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Harris, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hind, Kenneth

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Irvine, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Jack, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Janman, Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Knowles, Michael

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Mr. Greg Knight.

  Lightbown, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly:—
  The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 11.

  Division No. 278]

  [1.52 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Allason, Rupert

  Bright, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chope, Christopher

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bowis, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  828

  Cran, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lord, Michael

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Maclean, David

  Day, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Devlin, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Durant, Tony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fallon, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Forth, Eric

  Moate, Roger

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Franks, Cecil

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Freeman, Roger

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  Neubert, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gill, Christopher

  Norris, Steve

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Paice, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pawsey, James

  Ground, Patrick

  Redwood, John

  Hague, William

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Harris, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hind, Kenneth

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Irvine, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Jack, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Janman, Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Knowles, Michael

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Mr. Greg Knight.

  Lightbown, David

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Beith, A. J.

  Nellist, Dave

  Bell, Stuart

  Skinner, Dennis

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dixon, Don

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Haynes, Frank

  Mr. Ian McCartney.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Division No. 279]

  [2.03 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Allason, Rupert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amess, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashby, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chope, Christopher

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brazier, Julian

  Day, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Devlin, Tim

  829

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Maginnis, Ken

  Fallon, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Forth, Eric

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Franks, Cecil

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Freeman, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Gale, Roger

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gill, Christopher

  Neubert, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Norris, Steve

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ground, Patrick

  Paice, James

  Hague, William

  Pawsey, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Redwood, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Harris, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hayward, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Stern, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Irvine, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Jack, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Janman, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Knowles, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Lightbown, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lilley, Peter

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Lord, Michael

  Mr. Greg Knight.

  Maclean, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for a levy on disposals of securities of companies to which the undertaking of a harbour authority is transferred and companies which control such companies and for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of payments of levy, interest on unpaid levy and penalties in respect of levy.
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction to the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill that it have power to make provision therein pursuant to the foregoing Resolution.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  INSURANCE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 8.

  Division No. 279]

  [2.03 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Allason, Rupert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amess, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashby, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chope, Christopher

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brazier, Julian

  Day, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Devlin, Tim

  829

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Maginnis, Ken

  Fallon, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Forth, Eric

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Franks, Cecil

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Freeman, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Gale, Roger

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gill, Christopher

  Neubert, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Norris, Steve

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ground, Patrick

  Paice, James

  Hague, William

  Pawsey, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Redwood, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Harris, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hayward, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Stern, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Irvine, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Jack, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Janman, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Knowles, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Lightbown, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lilley, Peter

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Lord, Michael

  Mr. Greg Knight.

  Maclean, David

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Beith, A. J.

  Nellist, Dave

  Bell, Stuart

  Skinner, Dennis

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Dixon, Don

  Mr. Ian McCartney and

  Haynes, Frank

  Dr. Norman A. Godman.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Division No. 280]

  [2.14 am

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Amess, David

  Allason, Rupert

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  830

  Ashby, David

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Beith, A. J.

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Irvine, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Jack, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Bowis, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Knapman, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Bright, Graham

  Knowles, Michael

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Lightbown, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Lilley, Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lord, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Maclean, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chapman, Sydney

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Cran, James

  Moate, Roger

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Day, Stephen

  Norris, Steve

  Devlin, Tim

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Paice, James

  Durant, Tony

  Redwood, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Rowe, Andrew

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Forth, Eric

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Franks, Cecil

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Freeman, Roger

  Stern, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Summerson, Hugo

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gow, Ian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Viggers, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Harris, David

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Hayward, Robert

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Hind, Kenneth

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Bell, Stuart

  Skinner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Haynes, Frank

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Mr. Ian McCartney.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  COMPANIES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1197), dated 7th June 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Planning and Building Regulations (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  VOTING RIGHTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents),
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7398/88 and 4218/90, relating to voting rights for Community nationals in local elections in their Member State of residence; and endorses the Government's view that the right to vote and stand as a candidate in local elections is primarily a matter of political rights which extends beyond the Community's competence and should be left to individual Member States to decide.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

  Denby Grange Colliery
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  2.25 am
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Even at this late hour, I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise several matters relating to my constituency. The closure of the Denby Grange colliery, the last pit in the Wakefield constituency, means that the period of the present Government has seen the complete destruction of an industry which had been the backbone of the Wakefield economy for generations. Although this debate is prompted by that closure, I wish to widen the issue. The Government are obstructing Wakefield's attempts to replace lost jobs in traditional industries. I should like to explain what we in Wakefield believe is needed from the Government to enable us to move forward in the process of re-industrialisation.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for remaining until this late hour. I hope that he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can briefly contribute in support of my arguments. My hon. Friend has argued much longer than I have, and I appreciate his support tonight.
  I have no desire to paint an entirely black picture of the economy of the Wakefield district. As the Minister is well aware, there are some positive factors. I commend Wakefield metropolitan district council on its efforts with job regeneration in recent years to offset the rundown in traditional industries such as coal. The economic development department of the local authority has fought tooth and nail for new industry, with considerable success. The Minister is familiar with some examples—the Coca-Cola Schweppes Beveridges and Nacanco development came to the Wakefield 41 site in 1988, creating 180 jobs, with a potential for 500 jobs. The Wakefield 41 business park, which opened in October last year, has the potential for some 1,200 jobs, and we hope that it will be the success that we expect. Asda's new distribution centre in the Normanton industrial estate has the potential for some 350 jobs.
  These developments have been achieved entirely through local effort. Companies have recognised the tremendous potential of the Wakefield district. The Minister is familiar with Pioneer, the Japanese audiovisual company, which has been attracted to the Whitwood Common site in Pontefract and Castleford. We hope that it will create 500 jobs in the first phase, and the number is expected to double in the second phase. The Minister will recall some months ago meeting the four Wakefield district Members of Parliament, the local authority representatives, and representatives of the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association. We pressed him to give Government assistance to bring Pioneer to Wakefield to create much-needed jobs. We had tea and biscuits and sympathy, but not much help.
  All the developments that I have mentioned are specific to the motorway corridor of the M1 and M62. It is of particular concern to the local authority that future developments on the corridor will be restricted by limitations on land.
  The Minister may point to the fact that official unemployment figures have fallen recently. I would argue

  833
  that that fall has been due in large part to the efforts of Wakefield district council to attract local employment. It is also important to stress that the Government's changes in the unemployment count have had a direct bearing on the specific circumstances of Wakefield district. I refer in particular to the Government's 29th adjustment of the count, aimed at reducing the unemployment figure—the amendment of the redundant mineworkers scheme, which has relieved a number of ex-miners in the Wakefield area of the requirement to sign on. In an area where the coal industry is in decline, that is bound to have a huge impact on the number of people registering as unemployed.
  The closure of Denby Grange colliery is a body blow to Wakefield's hopes of a revival in its economic prospects. It is particularly bad news for those employed at the pit, many of whom are known to me personally and have worked so hard to keep the pit going over a number of years during which its future has been threatened. It is particularly sad to note that a number of the employees affected had already experienced two or three pit closures before moving to Denby Grange. The numbers involved in the closure are worrying. About 200 contractors are losing their work at the pit because of the closure. About 620 miners are directly affected, as well as about 50 administrative and managerial staff. The bulk of the employees affected are under 30, so they will be seeking alternative employment. I know that the Minister has had a long hard day, but I must point out to thim that that brings the total of pit job losses in Wakefield under the present Government to around the 16,000 mark.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford will echo this point. The map for assisted areas was last drawn up in 1984, but the majority of job losses in the coal and related industries have occurred since then. In 1984, Wakefield had 16 collieries and 15,340 miners. We now have three collieries employing 2,690 miners. Those figures represent a loss of 13 collieries and more than 13,000 jobs in just five years, since the last assisted area map was drawn up. In the same period, job losses in mining-related industries have totalled nearly 3,000. Subcontractors have been directly affected and mining engineering in Wakefield has been badly affected, with hundreds of people losing their jobs.
  All this gives cause for concern about our export record. Many of the mining engineering companies in Wakefield are major exporters and earners for Britain. Some companies are worried that the decline in the home coal industry makes it more difficult for them to market their products to foreign Governments. A recent study of the engineering sector by Leeds polytechnic said that Wakefield
  "has an engineering industry structure which is unfavourably biased away from the relatively buoyant segment and in favour of a segment which is nationally experienced high relative decline."
  It is worth mentioning also that, since the Government came to power, Wakefield's other backbone industry, the textile industry, has lost about 5,000 jobs.
  The Government's policy is obstructing Wakefield's attempt to re-industrialise, and the side effects of that policy have had a major impact on our continuing problems. High interest rates are a case in point. Last week, the Forum of Private Business, a lobby group representing 17,000 companies, conducted a survey suggesting that the Government's high interest rate policy
  834
  had cost Yorkshire and Humberside almost 70,000 new jobs, a number of which would have come to the Wakefield district to offset the job losses in traditional industries.
  We must also consider the way in which the Government have failed to invest in the infrastructure which would have encouraged renewed investment and employment in the Wakefield district. The most recent example of that is the Government's failure to invest in high speed direct rail links from the north to the channel tunnel. That makes the task of job creation in an area such as mine that much more difficult.
  Government policies have led directly to the export of British jobs from areas such as Wakefield. That has a major bearing on our predicament, particularly in the coal industry. The privatisation of electricity generation has led directly to a huge increase in coal imports. The Government have actively supported private measures such as the Humber Ports Bill promoted by the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary which have been geared towards importing bulk cargos such as coal from countries such as South Africa.
  Last month an Oxford economist called Terry O'Shaunessy said that the Government's policies will not only lead to further massive mining job losses but will increase the trade deficit by up to £1,500 million per year. In that respect, the Government's policies are economic madness, especially in view of the present huge balance of payments deficit. Obviously, such policies are a death warrant for what is left of the coal industry in Wakefield district.
  I wish to pinpoint the two main areas which are of major concern to my colleagues in the Wakefield district and to Wakefield district council in seeking to create new jobs and industries in the area. We face those problems against a background of difficulties which in many instances are related to Government policies as we try to re-industrialise the area.
  Wakefield has been included in the European Commission's RECHAR programme—an aid programme for coalfield areas. When it was announced, it appeared to be a major boost for the Wakefield district. Unfortunately, there is a nasty sting in the tail as a result of Government policy. The economic development officer of Wakefield described it as a poisoned chalice when I spoke to her yesterday.
  I hope that the Minister will respond to that particular point when he replies. Because Government restrictions on local authority capital spending were determined before it was known that RECHAR funds would be available, in order to spend RECHAR money other planned projects have to be shelved or RECHAR has to be spent on projects that would have gone ahead anyway. The whole purpose of RECHAR projects is that they should result in additional schemes targeted on local problems such as those in Wakefield with the declining coal industry.
  The British Government, however, are the only Government in the Community completely to undermine the intention of the RECHAR programme. That has enormous obvious consequences for places like Wakefield. One could say with regard to RECHAR, "The EEC giveth, and the British Government taketh away."
  I wish now to consider assisted area status. The Minister is aware that in Wakefield we have been pressing for a long time for that status because the boundaries were drawn up in 1984 and they are now completely irrelevant for areas such as Wakefield. One way to overcome the

  835
  Catch-22 situation that I have described with regard to RECHAR is for the local authority concerned to be designated an assisted area or urban programme area. That would extend the local authority's capital borrowing powers by the cost of whatever schemes are acceptable to central Government and allow EC finance to be set against the cost. Those are schemes in addition to the original capital programme and therefore fit the EC requirement. I plead with the Minister to listen specifically to that point, because without that secondary assistance RECHAR is largely irrelevant to many of the problems that we face in Wakefield.
  In Wakefield—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford will support me in this—we believe that there is no justification for the continued exclusion of Wakefield from assisted area and urban programme status. The changes in the employment base of Wakefield since 1984 mean that we should be included in the programme to do the job that our constituents want us to do. Wakefield must be unique, and it must be recognised by the EC for RECHAR, but it has had no recognition from the Government, although we have put our problems to Ministers time and again. This is my third Adjournment debate on the subject. My hon. Friend has been pressing the matter for years and has also had an Adjournment debate on it.
  Regional assistance is now totally out of date and must be revised urgently. I hope that the Minister will appreciate these points, the efforts that we have made, and the fact that we have had some success in our task. We could have much more success with the kind of assistance that I have described.
  2.40 am
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) have the consent of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and the Minister?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Yes.
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Yes.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I shall be brief to allow the Minister to reply as fully as he possibly can.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for allowing me to intervene in his Adjournment debate, and I congratulate him on being successful in the ballot. As my hon. Friend said, this is the latest of many debates to try to influence the appropriate Minister of the needs of mining communities, especially in the constituencies of Wakefield and Pontefract and Castleford. I probably sound like a parrot: I have explained the problem time and again, but, unfortunately, my words have so far fallen on deaf ears.
  The Minister will recall that the Energy Select Committee published two major reports—one on the coal industry, and one on the privatisation of electricity production. Those reports highlighted the problems that have been and will be created by further pit closures in mining communities. However, to date, my constituents
  836
  have not received any aid to attract alternative industry. As my hon. Friend has said, we have had some success with Pioneer and Coca-Cola, but that success was brought about by the efforts of the local authority. There has been no financial assistance from the Government.
  We are approaching a serious situation because the rundown of the coal industry has not ended. In fact, the rundown will be rapid over the next two or three years and beyond, but there are no signs of any Government assistance.
  At the time of the Denby Grange announcement, there was another announcement on the Allerton Bywater workshops in my constituency. Four hundred men lost their jobs. I went to the workshops a short while ago, and it was quite obvious that quite a lot of money had been spent there. Looking at the new buildings, one would think that capacity would last for years and years. One old-timer in the workshops said, "There's something going on up here. They're spending a lot of money. I'll bet they're going to flog it." I bet he is not far off. I bet that somebody will get hold of that wonderful workshop with all its equipment and put it into the private sector. In my constituency, 10,000 jobs have been lost since the miners' strike, and we expect many more to go.
  I support all that my hon. Friend has said. I understand the difficulties about redrawing the intermediate area status map because they have been put to us year in and year out. It is ironic that we enjoyed intermediate area status until about 1981 when we had all the pits working in the constituency.
  There are to be further rundowns, and the Government should provide assistance as soon as possible. When the time comes to redraw the map, I hope that the Minister will find a way to include Wakefield and the Pontefract and Castleford travel-to-work area. There will be great devastation as a result of the Government's deliberate policy of electricity privatisation. The decision last week to subsidise the nuclear power industry will also hit the coal industry. How can the Government justify the running down of a major source of energy and at the same time be prepared to subsidise another form of energy, the full cost of which is not known? Nobody is really concerned to find out the true cost, including decommissioning, of nuclear energy.
  If the Government continue to wipe out the coal industry, they have an obligation to encourage alternative employment for men whose average age, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has said, is 30 to 33. Such men cannot be thrown on the scrap heap and if they are not provided with alternative employment there will be social unrest. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider our request.
  2.46 am
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has raised the question of the closure of the Denby Grange colliery and its implications for the Wakefield district. I fully recognise his concern about that. However, as I am sure he is aware, and he accepts, decisions on pit closures remain a commercial matter for British Coal. It is not for the Government to seek to intervene in these commercial decisions. They are for the management to make in the light of its costs and the relative competitive position of

  837
  what it produces. One understands the uncertainty, worry and disturbance that this is bound to cause the miners involved, their families, and naturally the wider community.
  As the hon. Gentleman will know, where jobs are lost, British Coal offers generous redundancy terms that are in line with the best available in British industry. To date, British Coal has managed the restructuring of the industry without the need for compulsory redundancies. Any miner wishing to stay has had the option of moving to another pit rather than taking redundancy.
  The hon. Members for Wakefield and for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) concentrated on the effect that the closure will have on the Wakefield area. They commented on what they see as a shortage of Government assistance to help the area overcome problems caused by the rundown of the local mining industry. Both hon. Gentlemen, most notably the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, called on the Government to give Wakefield assisted area status. I am afraid that I must make it plain that there is no prospect of granting such status in advance of any general review of the assisted area status map.
  Unemployment in Wakefield and Dewsbury currently stands at 7.3 per cent. compared with the Great Britain average of 6.2 per cent. The average for all intermediate areas is 8 per cent. and the average for all development areas is higher at 11 per cent. I had the pleasure of meeting both hon. Members some time ago when they came to see me about a particular inward investment. At that time we discussed the prospects of giving assisted area status to Wakefield.
  The plain truth is that the number of registered unemployed in Wakefield and Dewsbury does not justify according the area assisted area status—certainly not now. Moreover, as I explained to both hon. Gentlemen when they were good enough to see me, we do not intend to redraw the map during the lifetime of this Parliament. Therefore, there is no immediate prospect whatever of Wakefield being given assisted area status. However, when the map is reviewed, the position of Wakefield will be considered. What both hon. Gentlemen have said will be taken into account.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Although the Minister has given the figures for Wakefield and Dewsbury and compared them with the national figures, he has not referred to the figures for the Pontefract and Castleford travel-to-work area, which are much higher. It is one of the blackspots. It is a mining community within the Wakefield metropolitan district area. The Government will find, if my figures are correct, that unemployment is about 11 per cent.
  Mr. Hogg: I make two points in reply to the hon. Gentleman. First, the Castleford and Pontefract area is probably too small to attract assisted area status. The matter could be examined but it is probably too small on its own. Secondly, we do not have it in mind to redraw the map during the lifetime of this Parliament.
  Mr. Lofthouse: But Pontefract and Castleford is a travel-to-work area which previously enjoyed intermediate area status. The boundaries were extended out into the rural areas at about the same time. That brought
  838
  unemployment down. Some people may have thought that that was a deliberate policy. Nevertheless, the area is a travel-to-work area. It enjoyed that status before, and it was considered large enough to have intermediate area status then.
  Mr. Hogg: Whatever the force of the hon. Gentleman's point that it is a travel-to-work area, we do not propose to redraw the map during the lifetime of this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman knows that because we discussed it when we had the pleasure of meeting some months ago.
  I now wish to turn to several issues which were directly or indirectly raised during the debate. The Government have been criticised for doing insufficient to assist the development of employment in the area. I do not agree with that criticism, but before I come to the detail of what the Government are doing—withal the time permitted to me—it is right to say that British Coal provides considerable assistance in the mining areas of Yorkshire which have been affected by the pit closures. British Coal Enterprise Limited was set up in 1984 to help create employment opportunities in the coalfield regions. It provided loan finance to businesses setting up, expanding or relocating in mining areas. In the Yorkshire region alone it provided loans of £8.9 million to 415 businesses. That led to the creation of over 5,000 jobs. I understand that approximately 30 per cent. of these jobs relate to the Wakefield metropolitan district council area.
  British Coal Enterprise has also provided financial sponsorship to the Wakefield enterprise agency and funded managed workshops and small business units. These schemes aim to provide new employment opportunities for anyone in the coal industry.
  Another aspect of Government activity, which I must mention briefly—I have only two minutes left—is the effect of the consultancy initiatives operated by the Department of Trade and Industry. As the House will be aware, the scheme aims to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to recognise the need for, and benefit from, the use of outside expertise. My Department provides 50 per cent. of the cost of such consultancies in the Wakefield area. To date, over 70 companies in the Wakefield area have taken advantage of it.
  My Department also runs the research and technology initiative under which there are several schemes to encourage collaborative industrial research projects. Firms in Wakefield are eligible.
  I should mention that Wakefield has an enterprise zone, at Langthwaite Grange. It has also been accorded the status of a derelict land clearance area. This means that public sector reclamation schemes qualify for derelict land grant—
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I shall not. I have only one more minute of my reply.
  This means that public sector reclamation schemes qualify for derelict land grant at a rate of 100 per cent. of eligible costs, and private sector schemes at a rate of 80 per cent.
  I am glad to say that since 1985 Wakefield has received more than £2.3 million in derelict land grant,

  839
  and as part of the council's three-year rolling programme a further £650,000 has been allocated by the Department of the Environment for the financial year 1990–91.
  The Government's small firm service has also been—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at five minutes to Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recruitment procedure to be followed for the chief executive and other staff of the Football Licensing Authority.

  Mr Waddington
  This will be a matter for the Football Licensing Authority but we expect that the chief executive and other executive staff will be seconded from the civil service, and that other staff will be recruited by the authority locally or by competition as appropriate.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women currently held at Her Majesty's pleasure are allowed to keep their children with them during their detention.

  Mr. Mellor
  There are no women detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, under section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, or serving life sentences, who currently have their children with them in prison. If the mother of a baby receives a custodial sentence of any length, she may apply to be admitted with her child to a prison mother and baby unit. Approval of such an application depends upon there being an available place and upon the mother's admission being considered to be in the best interests of the child. A child is not normally allowed to remain with its mother in prison beyond the age of 18 months.

  Blundeston Prison, Suffolk
  Mr David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about staffing levels and industrial relations at Blundeston prison, Suffolk in the light of the present dispute in the prison service.

  Mr. Mellor
  At present there are 240.5 staff in post at Her Majesty's prison Blundeston. Of these, 149 are officers, including principal and senior officers, compared with the target officer in post figure set for 31 March 1991 of 148.

  The Prison Officers Association has not declared a dispute at the prison.

  Prison officers voted in June to take national industrial action. A majority of POA members at Blundeston voted in favour of national industrial action.

  West Yorkshire Police
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire on the full cost of the police operation at Millfield quarry lagoon, Hurbury, Wakefield on Sunday 17 June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of West Yorkshire police that the full additional cost of the police operation at Hurbury was £10,073.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter dated 24 May from the hon. Member for South Hams concerning the transfer to Dartmoor prison for Mr. Willcox, currently a prison officer at Ford open prison, west Sussex.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have written to my hon. Friend today.

  Offences
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to introduce legislation to make any class of person responsible in law for an offence of which he had no prior knowledge.

  Mr. Waddington
  The criminal law contains a range of provisions establishing liability, from knowing of and intending to commit an offence, to offences of strict liability not requiring conscious knowledge, for instance those involving motor vehicle defects. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular legislative proposal in mind perhaps he would let me know of his precise concern.

  TVS Entertainment Ltd.
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to whether he intends to investigate allegations of forged documents relating to TVS Entertainment Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis this matter is now the subject of a police investigation.

  Football Match Tickets (Sales)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department intends to implement the recommendation contained in Lord Justice Taylor's final report into the Hillsborough disaster that it should be made an offence to sell tickets on the day of a football match without authority from the home club to do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We hope to reach a conclusion shortly on whether to create such an offence.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the
  391
  selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with Public Record Office inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  Documents originating from the Home Office are recorded on official files which are indexed according to standard subject headings.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of, and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Waddington
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with its duties under the Act, the Department ensures that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Trafalgar Square (Incidents)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 35, if he is able to provide the details of age, sex, offence, last known address and prison or place of confinement of those people who were remanded and are still remaining in custody following the incidents in Trafalgar square on 31 March.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Birmingham Six
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers of the Devon and Cornwall police are working on the inquiry into the Birmingham pub-bombing cases.

  Mr. Waddington
  I understand from the chief constable of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary that 45 police officers from that force are currently engaged in carrying out inquiries into various matters which have been raised about the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the trial Judge, Lord Bridge, has been consulted either by his Department or by any of the various inquiries since 1986 into the safety of the Birmingham pub-bombing convictions.
  392
  Mr. Waddington
  No.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference of the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall police into the Birmingham pub-bombing convictions; and if they have been amended since the inquiry was first commissioned.

  Mr. Waddington
  In March 1990, I asked the chief constable of the West Midlands police for a report on a number of matters arising out of representations made by the solicitor acting on behalf of the Birmingham Six. Since then, I have asked the chief constable for a report on a number of further matters which have been raised with him about the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six. The chief constable has asked the Devon and Cornwall constabulary to undertake inquiries on my behalf.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps the Home Office has taken to satisfy itself that the named day-to-day care person, with a statutory responsibility under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, within the National Institute for Medical Research, carried out his or her duties to the full, relating to Professor Feldberg's experiments;

  (2) what steps the Home Office has taken to satisfy itself that the named veterinarian, with a statutory responsibility under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, within the National Institute for Medical Research, carried out his or her duties to the full relating to Professor Feldberg's experiments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It would not be right to make any comment on matters such as these while the Medical Research Council is conducting an inquiry into the circumstances which gave rise to the allegations about the work carried out by Professor Feldberg.

  Homosexuals
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government policy on the treatment of lesbians and gay men under the law.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 1 February 1990 at columns 304–6, and to my letter to him of 1 June 1990, a copy of which is in the Library.

  "The Sentence of the Court"
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish a new edition of the handbook, "The Sentence of the Court".

  Mr. Waddington
  I am glad to say that a new edition is published today and is being distributed to all judges and magistrates. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to announce any further appointments to the Animal Procedures Committee.
  393
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am pleased to be able to announce the appointment to the Animal Procedures Committee of Professor Margaret Brazier, of the department of law, university of Manchester and Professor Onora O'Neill, of the department of philosophy, university of Essex. I am grateful to Professor Brazier and Professor O'Neill for agreeing to serve on this committee.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding applications for(a) registration and (b) naturalisation are awaiting

  Citizenship applications outstanding in caseworking groups

  Registration

  Naturalisation

  Total

  December 1987

  n/a

  n/a

  55,374

  March 1988

  45,723

  28,674

  74,397

  June 1988

  n/a

  n/a

  79,143

  September 1988

  n/a

  n/a

  95,971

  December 1988

  n/a

  n/a

  119,276

  March 1989

  84,438

  41,154

  125,592

  June 1989

  86,452

  52,318

  138,770

  September 1989

  70,858

  63,877

  134,735

  December 1989

  55,239

  64,930

  120,169

  March 1990

  38,832

  65,050

  103,882

  May 1990

  33,755

  64,273

  98,028

  n/a = not available

  The average processing times for cases completed in May 1990 was 24 months for registrations and 29 months for naturalisations. We aim to reduce these waiting times as soon as practicable.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been taken out of tax over the past 11 years; if he has any plans to take more people out of tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  If the 1978–79 income tax regime were reintroduced after indexation of thresholds to 1990–91 levels, the number of individual taxpayers would increase by a little under 2 million. Tax thresholds have been increased by almost 25 per cent. in real terms under this Government. We shall continue to review their levels in the future.

  Taxation (Performers)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what authority the Inland Revenue has decided to distinguish between established performers/artists who are being taxed under schedule D and new performers/artists who are to be taxed under schedule E;

  (2) with whom the Inland Revenue has agreed a gradual transition to the schedule E treatment of performers.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The Inland Revenue has a duty to implement tax law. The change in the tax treatment of certain performers/artists is based on decisions made in the courts. The arrangements to put their tax treatment on to the correct basis over a transitional period were made by the Inland Revenue, with
  394
  decision at the latest available date and at each quarter since 31 December 1987; what is the average time taken from receipt of application to taking a decision on each application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The available information about outstanding cases relates to applications in the nationality division caseworking groups and is in the table. In addition, on 31 December 1987, there were an estimated 210,000 applications in Lunar house that had not reached caseworking groups, and these were transferred to the nationality division over the course of the next 18 months.

  the approval of Treasury Ministers, under its powers for the general "care and management of the income tax in the Taxes Management Act 1970.

  These arrangements have been discussed, over an extended period, with representatives of all sides of the theatre industry and take into account their concern that an abrupt change to schedule E for all those involved could be disruptive to the industry, and, in some cases, cause hardship.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what relative consideration the Inland Revenue has given to the cases of Fall v. Hitchen and Davies v. Braithwaite, in deciding whether schedule E was the correct schedule of charge for income tax for performers and artists undertaking theatrical engagements;

  (2) on what legal authority the Inland Revenue based its claim that generally performers and artists undertaking theatrical engagements under standard contracts are, in law, employees.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: I understand that the Inland Revenue's view on the taxation position of theatrical performers working under standard contracts is based on legal advice they have received relating to the 1972 Fall v Hitchen High Court case, which indicated that a typical standard contract of engagement, based on terms agreed between Equity and theatre managements, was a contract of employment, and a number of subsequent Court decisions on the general issue of whether people are employees or self-employed. The Revenue has explained its views on these issues to the theatre industry on several occasions in the past.

  In Fall v Hitchen the High Court considered, and distinguished, the earlier judgment in Davis v Braithwaite. I understand that the Revenue took both cases, and other relevant cases, fully into account in forming their views on the correct tax treatment of theatrical performers.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors led to the revision of the figures for manufacturing investment in the north-east for the years 1979 to 1987 between the answer of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South of 6 June 1989,Official Report, column 70, and his answer of 25 June 1990.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The figures have not been revised. As stated in these replies the information provided on 6 June 1989 was based on constant 1985 prices while that provided on 25 June was based on current prices. The earlier constant price figures used price indices which are applicable to manufacturing investment for the United Kingdom as a whole. The Central Statistical Office, which now has responsibility for the figures, considers these may be inappropriate for individual regions because of the different mix of industries and the possibility of differing prices and price movements in each. There are no regional price indices.

  Natural Beauty Products, Bridgend
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his statement of 18 June,Official Report, columns 777–80, if he will indicate by weight and volume the loaded capacity of the vehicles which arrived at the Natural Beauty Products in Bridgend on 2 February, and the assessment the value added tax official then made of the weight, and value, actual and auction, volume, of the finished goods, raw materials, factory equipment and office equipment which he intended to remove from the factory.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: Customs and Excise had no responsibility for any vehicle that arrived at Natural Beauty Products in Bridgend on 24 February.

  On 1 February, Customs instructed the bailiff to commence removal of the finished goods subject to distraint. Although a Ford Transit van and Ford Cargo 60 cwt. pantechnicon called to the premises, only the latter was used to remove the goods. On 2 February a Ford Cargo lorry and a furniture removal van arrived at the pemises but no goods were removed because of the prior appointment of an administrative receiver. On both these dates the provision of the transport was arranged by the bailiff.

  Customs and Excise made no assessment of the weight of the goods subject to the levy. The total volume was estimated to require four 60 cwt. pantechnicons to complete the removal of all items subject to distraint.

  The administrative receiver's estimate of the book value of the finished goods, raw materials, factory equipment and office equipment was £228,875. No deduction was made for possible tax liability and no account was taken of any other expenses or charges that may accrue on their disposal. The estimated auction value was £29,200.

HEALTH

  Community Care
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation he has had regarding funding for care in the community in future years.
  396
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have discussed all aspects of community care, including funding, with a wide range of interested organisations.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to consider how best to fund a scheme to look at the design and provision of wheelchairs for use on public transport services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no plans to fund such a scheme. The accommodation of wheelchairs on public transport is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  National Assistance Act
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received advocating the replacement of section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948;

  (2) what plans he has to reform section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Representations were received in the form of amendments to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, and correspondence from Age Concern, (England).

  We have no plans to reform section 47 but we shall be keeping the operation of these provisions under review as our new community care arrangements take effect.

  HIV
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the total number of people who have been infected with HIV.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest estimate of the total number of people who have been infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in England and Wales was published by the Public Health Laboratory Service in January 1990 as a supplement to the communicable disease report. In this report, "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in England and Wales to end 1993" (the Day report), it was estimated that there were between 12,250 and 26,400 HIV-infected people in England and Wales at the end of 1988.

  A separate group is currently preparing new estimates of short-term predictions of HIV incidence and prevalence estimates of the numbers of AIDS cases in Scotland as a revision of the earlier report of national working party on health service implications of HIV infection (the Tayler report). Copies of both the Day and Tayler reports are available in the Library.

  Reported incidence in Northern Ireland is too low to make accurate estimates of the likely spread of HIV infection.

  Results from the HIV prevalence monitoring programme using the unlinked anonymous technique will help to reduce uncertainty in these estimates.

  Dental Laboratories
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the proportion of the total fees paid to dentists under the national health service which is
  397
  attributable to dental laboratory costs; and what arrangements exist to ensure that such proportion is duly paid to the laboratories.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the current scale of fees for national health service dental treatment which came into effect on 1 October 1989, approximately 18 per cent. of the total fees to be paid to dentists is attributable to dental laboratory costs. The price which individual dentists pay for laboratory-made dental appliances is, however, entirely a private arrangement between the dentist and the laboratory concerned.

  GPs (Home Visits)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce a charge for general practitioner home visits.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Child Migrants Trust
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance his Department gives to the Child Migrants Trust; and if he will make a statement regarding future developments.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 27 June at column 249.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which officials at national, regional or local level are responsible for drawing up rules for family practitioner committees on the appointment of their chief executive.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 25 June at column 88.

  Cigarette Advertisements
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to implement the recommendation of the third report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship that all cigarette advertisements should carry a health warning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This was not a formal recommendation of the committee as a whole, but the view of the chairman expressed in his foreword. The Government fully accept the chairman's concerns, and is currently negotiating with the tobacco industry on this matter. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish any written evidence given by the national health service trusts unit to district health authorities, regional health authorities, project managers or trust sponsors on the preparation or revision of draft business plans for units seeking self-governing status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We intend to publish a compendium on national health service trusts in the 398
  autumn, which will update and bring together advice on the establishment and operation of NHS trusts which has been provided by the Department.

  Social Work
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on general social work practice within local authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department promotes effective and efficient social work by working constructively with local authorities, and representatives of the professions concerned, to promote the development of services which will provide quality of care combined with value for money for clients.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has made any estimate of the possible cash savings arising as a result of the assessment and case management procedure contained in the Government's community care proposals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We expect local authorities to make more cost effective use of resources as they develop their ability to offer a more individual response to clients' needs through improved procedures for assessment and case management. The extent to which this will be achieved will depend on the decisions of individual authorities.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what external evaluation of his Department's draft guidance on the implementation of the Government's proposals on community care took place between the deliberations of the guidance working parties and their despatch to interested organisations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Representatives from external organisations contributed to the community care development project groups whose reports helped to inform the draft guidance. The Department has recently sent this draft guidance for formal consultation to a wide range of external bodies involved in community care services. These include the local authority associations, the Association of Directors of Social Services, national health service regional general managers, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, representative organisations of the medical and nursing professions and other representative organisations.

TRANSPORT

  Dial-a-Ride
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from dial-a-ride, regarding transport arrangements for the disabled; and what measures he intends to introduce.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are many dial-a-ride and similar services for people with disabilities in operation all over the country. Outside London their funding and development is a matter for local authorities. London Transport has responsibility for administering the scheme in London.

  Disabled People (Transport Access)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to hold discussions with United Kingdom passenger transport authorities on improvements in access by disabled citizens to fixed and mobile facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is in regular contact, both direct and through the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, with transport authorities and operators throughout the country to promote ways of improving access for people with disabilities both to vehicles and systems.

  London Underground
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State how many times in the last month the fire brigade has been called to be in attendance at a London underground station.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Underground tells me that its record consists of four-week periods rather than calendar months. Figures are not yet available for the whole of the four-week period ending 23 June 1990, but from 27 May to 21 June the fire brigade was called to be in attendance at a London underground station on 474 occasions. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 8 May,Official Report, column 7.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to visit the north-west to discuss with interested parties the maximisation of benefit from the channel tunnel to the region.

  Mr. Freeman
  I look forward to several visits to the north-west and would be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

  Transport Infrastructure, Essex
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the adequacy of the transport infrastructure in Essex.

  Mr. Atkins
  My hon. Friend's report entitled "South Essex Transport—A Preliminary Report" is the only representation I have received on this matter. It is being considered by my officials and a full reply will be sent shortly.

  Beaches
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statutory provisions relating to vehicular access to public beaches.

  Mr. Atkins
  No public general Act contains any provision relating expressly to such access.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce a requirement that vehicles satisfy a maximum exhaust carbon emission test as part of the MOT test.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 28 June,Official Report, column 305.

  Concessionary Fares
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in light of the recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of James v. Eastleigh borough council, what advice he is now offering to transport undertakings, in respect of concessionary fares for elderly people.

  Mr. Freeman
  This decision has no relevance for local authority concessionary fares schemes for people of pensionable age, which are based on statutory provision unaffected by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  Railways
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total financial subvention from public funds for running the railways in each of the EC countries; and how many miles of track each country has.

  Mr. Freeman
  The most recent comprehensive information available to my Department on the public subsidy levels of the European Community's railway systems is contained in the 10th Commission report on the transposed annual accounts of railway undertakings for 1986 [COM (89) 364 final]. These have been converted to sterling on purchasing power parity, together with figures for route mileage; track mileage figures are not available.

  Country

  Support (£ million sterling)

  Route mileage

  Belgium

  454

  2,221

  Denmark

  158

  1,547

  France

  1,845

  21,602

  Greece

  123

  1,549

  Ireland

  92

  1,215

  Italy

  4,403

  10,009

  Luxembourg

  83

  170

  Netherlands

  319

  1,766

  Portugal

  161

  2,255

  United Kingdom

  815

  10,374

  West Germany

  2,138

  17,052

  Notes:

  1. COM (89) 364 does not include details in respect of Spain, which was not a member of the EC in 1986. The figure for route mileage in Spain is 7,844.

  2. The subsidy figure for the United Kingdom includes support for the British Railways Board (£810 million) and for the Northern Ireland Railway Company (£5 million).

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his response to proposals for an integrated high speed rail network to service United Kingdom industry and commerce from the year 2000 onwards.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will be glad to look at any proposals put to me by British Rail for high-speed passenger services.

  Wrentham Bypass
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the status, programming, funding and timetabling of the proposed by-pass of Wrentham, on the A12 in Suffolk.

  Mr. Atkins
  Wrentham by-pass forms part of my Department's proposals for the A12, Saxmundham by-pass to the Lowestoft widening scheme, which was included in the report "Trunk Roads, England: Into the
  401
  1990s" published earlier this year. The design commission for part of the scheme including a by-pass of Wrentham, has been awarded by the Department to Suffolk county council. Council staff will carry out preliminary investigation of the options for a dual carriageway by-pass before the public are consulted next year. Announcement of a preferred route will follow. Timing of construction will be dependent on the completion of the remaining statutory procedures and the availability of funds.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Most individual documents are not separately registered. Documents are lodged on registered files which are part of a structured filing system which is regulated by the Department's chief registrar.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of, and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Atkins
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with duties under the Act, the Department is obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  A40 (Improvement)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 June to the hon. Member for Uxbridge, what were the reasons for the increase in the estimated cost of the A40 Western avenue improvement at the junction with Long lane, Hillingdon from £18.2 million between November 1987 at 1986 prices to £34.1 million at 1987 prices.

  Mr. Atkins
  The most significant element in the increase in the estimated cost of constructing the scheme was that the cost of piling and structural work in London has 402
  exceeded the rate of inflation. In addition, there were increases in the cost of London Underground's scheme to reconstruct Hillingdon station to higher, more up to date standards.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Greece
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the United Kingdom has taken within the Council of Ministers of the European Community to urge Greece to release the 250 conscientious objectors detained in Avlona military prison.

  Mr. Maude
  None. Under Greece's military service provisions, conscientious objectors can opt for unarmed military service of double the annual period. But it is an offence to refuse to do military service altogether.

  NATO Summit
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed during the recent NATO Foreign Ministers meeting at Turnberry.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The meeting usefully prepared the ground for discussion at this week's NATO summit, on how NATO should adapt to changing times. We also discussed the external aspects of German unification; the future of CSCE; and current arms control issues. A copy of the communique has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time taken to issue explanatory statements by entry clearance offices following receipt of an appeal or request to provide one.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The majority of posts are able to meet our targets of despatching settlement appeals to the appellate authorities within three months of the date of receipt and visit appeals within one month. Staffing levels are being increased at the few posts which, because of growing demand for visas, have been unable to meet these targets during the past year.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of, and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do
  403
  so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Documents in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are normally placed on departmental files and processed in accordance with departmental instructions and registry practices.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 25 June to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, whether he has received any representations from institutions in other European countries about the recent changes in the natural history museum.

  Maintained school leavers in England Aggregated over 1986, 1987, 1988

  Percentage of all leavers with grades A-C at GCSE/'O' level/CSE

  Local education authority

  Modern foreign language

  Rank

  Mathematics

  Rank

  English

  Rank

  Barking

  6·0

  (95)

  17·9

  (92)

  24·0

  (95)

  Barnet

  28·0

  (1)

  46·5

  (1)

  51·9

  (2)

  Bexley

  15·2

  (32)

  33·0

  (15)

  40·7

  (26)

  Brent

  12·9

  (53)

  24·4

  (70)

  33·7

  (69)

  Bromley

  19·3

  (12)

  35·0

  (10)

  44·1

  (12)

  Croydon

  14·8

  (35)

  28·6

  (48)

  40·1

  (32)

  Ealing

  9·6

  (84)

  24·4

  (72)

  30·4

  (79)

  Enfield

  16·5

  (22)

  31·2

  (27)

  38·7

  (41)

  Haringey

  11·5

  (68)

  19·5

  (89)

  32·1

  (75)

  Harrow

  18·2

  (15)

  43·9

  (2)

  53·5

  (1)

  Havering

  11·7

  (65)

  30·0

  (38)

  38·6

  (42)

  Hillingdon

  9·8

  (81)

  30·1

  (35)

  35·0

  (60)

  Hounslow

  12·8

  (55)

  28·2

  (50)

  35·4

  (57)

  Kingston upon Thames

  20·7

  (6)

  32·9

  (16)

  51·2

  (4)

  Merton

  16·5

  (21)

  28·7

  (47)

  36·9

  (49)

  Newham

  7·7

  (93)

  18·8

  (91)

  28·5

  (87)

  Redbridge

  14·5

  (38)

  30·0

  (37)

  37·6

  (47)

  Richmond upon Thames

  20·4

  (7)

  32·8

  (17)

  42·8

  (18)

  Sutton

  25·8

  (2)

  40·0

  (3)

  46·2

  (7)

  Waltham Forest

  9·0

  (87)

  15·9

  (94)

  24·5

  (94)

  Birmingham

  11·2

  (70)

  20·8

  (80)

  32·2

  (74)

  Coventry

  11·6

  (66)

  22·3

  (76)

  34·3

  (63)

  Dudley

  14·2

  (39)

  27·2

  (58)

  33·9

  (68)

  Sandwell

  8·0

  (91)

  15·4

  (96)

  24·6

  (93)

  Solihull

  20·0

  (8)

  34·0

  (13)

  45·6

  (8)

  Walsall

  12·8

  (56)

  21·9

  (78)

  32·8

  (73)

  404
  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not received any such representations. We understand that the museum will continue to meet its statutory national and international obligations.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Danny McNamee
  Mr. Terry Field
  To ask the Attorney-General why the appeal on behalf of Danny McNamee currently imprisoned in Parkhurst prison was cancelled for July and put back to November; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The listing of cases in the Court of Appeal criminal division is entirely a matter for the Court. I understand that Mr. McNamee's application for leave to appeal against conviction was originally listed to be heard by the court on 16 July but was relisted for 12 November, with the agreement of the parties, to enable the court to deal with another case on 16 July.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  GCSE Results
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list, by county education authority in England, in rank order, the percentage of all pupils gaining a higher grade GCSE pass A to C in(a) a modern European language, (b) mathematics and (c) English, in 1989.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information for 1989 is not yet available. The table gives information for school leavers, for county and metropolitan local education authorities, aggregated over the three years 1986–88 to reduce sampling error.
  405

  Percentage of all leavers with grades A-C at GCSE/'O' level/CSE

  Local education authority

  Modern foreign language

  Rank

  Mathematics

  Rank

  English

  Rank

  Wolverhampton

  10·9

  (72)

  19·8

  (85)

  29·7

  (84)

  Knowsley

  3·7

  (96)

  15·8

  (95)

  20·5

  (96)

  Liverpool

  10·5

  (76)

  20·1

  (83)

  30·0

  (82)

  St. Helens

  14·0

  (40)

  29·5

  (41)

  33·2

  (71)

  Sefton

  14·5

  (36)

  27·9

  (52)

  42·6

  (19)

  Wirral

  15·3

  (30)

  28·8

  (45)

  39·8

  (34)

  Bolton

  15·5

  (28)

  30·6

  (30)

  40·7

  (28)

  Bury

  13·1

  (50)

  35·9

  (7)

  42·8

  (17)

  Manchester

  9·3

  (86)

  19·7

  (88)

  27·1

  (91)

  Oldham

  10·9

  (73)

  20·7

  (81)

  25·7

  (92)

  Rochdale

  10·0

  (80)

  23·6

  (74)

  35·5

  (56)

  Salford

  11·2

  (71)

  25·3

  (67)

  34·6

  (62)

  Stockport

  13·7

  (45)

  31·2

  (25)

  44·4

  (11)

  Tameside

  13·0

  (51)

  29·6

  (40)

  39·6

  (36)

  Trafford

  24·2

  (3)

  36·4

  (6)

  45·5

  (9)

  Wigan

  18·1

  (16)

  34·2

  (12)

  42·0

  (22)

  Barnsley

  8·1

  (90)

  19·9

  (84)

  28·4

  (88)

  Doncaster

  9·7

  (82)

  25·6

  (65)

  29·5

  (86)

  Rotherham

  12·7

  (58)

  23·8

  (73)

  30·7

  (77)

  Sheffield

  12·6

  (61)

  25·2

  (68)

  35·4

  (58)

  Bradford

  11·8

  (64)

  19·8

  (86)

  29·6

  (85)

  Calderdale

  12·2

  (62)

  22·0

  (77)

  33·9

  (67)

  Kirklees

  16·3

  (25)

  27·3

  (56)

  36·1

  (52)

  Leeds

  13·4

  (49)

  25·8

  (64)

  34·1

  (65)

  Wakefield

  10·5

  (77)

  24·4

  (71)

  29·8

  (83)

  Gateshead

  8·3

  (89)

  21·3

  (79)

  28·3

  (89)

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  10·3

  (78)

  17·5

  (93)

  28·0

  (90)

  North Tyneside

  12·0

  (63)

  26·8

  (59)

  35·9

  (53)

  South Tyneside

  8·8

  (88)

  23·3

  (75)

  30·6

  (78)

  Sunderland

  7·8

  (92)

  19·7

  (87)

  30·0

  (81)

  Inner London

  9·7

  (83)

  20·5

  (82)

  30·1

  (80)

  Avon

  13·7

  (43)

  28·5

  (49)

  40·1

  (33)

  Bedfordshire

  13·9

  (41)

  28·8

  (46)

  38·9

  (40)

  Berkshire

  19·7

  (9)

  33·3

  (14)

  41·0

  (25)

  Buckinghamshire

  23·5

  (4)

  37·3

  (5)

  47·8

  (5)

  Cambridgeshire

  17·6

  (17)

  29·4

  (43)

  40·1

  (31)

  Cheshire

  16·3

  (24)

  30·9

  (29)

  40·6

  (29)

  Cleveland

  12·9

  (54)

  30·1

  (34)

  35·2

  (59)

  Cornwall1

  13·5

  (48)

  31·3

  (24)

  43·2

  (16)

  Cumbria

  13·6

  (47)

  32·3

  (19)

  37·6

  (45)

  Derbyshire

  11·5

  (67)

  27·9

  (51)

  34·1

  (64)

  Devon

  12·7

  (57)

  27·9

  (53)

  38·9

  (39)

  Dorset

  16·5

  (23)

  31·2

  (26)

  43·9

  (14)

  Durham

  10·1

  (79)

  24·7

  (69)

  33·4

  (70)

  East Sussex

  13·8

  (42)

  29·4

  (44)

  41·7

  (23)

  Essex

  16·2

  (26)

  32·3

  (20)

  40·2

  (30)

  Gloucestershire

  18·4

  (14)

  31·3

  (23)

  43·5

  (15)

  Hampshire

  15·2

  (31)

  32·5

  (18)

  41·0

  (24)

  Hereford and Worcester

  15·4

  (29)

  29·9

  (39)

  42·0

  (21)

  Hertfordshire

  19·5

  (10)

  34·9

  (11)

  45·3

  (10)

  Humberside

  12·9

  (52)

  25·9

  (63)

  34·1

  (66)

  Isle of Wight

  6·2

  (94)

  19·4

  (90)

  31·5

  (76)

  Kent

  17·3

  (18)

  31·6

  (22)

  39·4

  (37)

  Lancashire

  15·2

  (33)

  30·2

  (33)

  38·3

  (43)

  Leicestershire

  9·4

  (85)

  27·6

  (54)

  35·5

  (55)

  Lincolnshire

  16·2

  (27)

  30·5

  (31)

  37·6

  (46)

  Norfolk

  12·7

  (59)

  30·0

  (36)

  35·8

  (54)

  North Yorkshire

  22·5

  (5)

  35·2

  (8)

  44·0

  (13)

  Northamptonshire

  10·8

  (74)

  26·2

  (62)

  36·1

  (51)

  Northumberland

  15·0

  (34)

  31·8

  (21)

  42·3

  (20)

  Nottinghamshire

  10·7

  (75)

  25·5

  (66)

  32·9

  (72)

  Oxfordshire

  14·5

  (37)

  30·2

  (32)

  38·9

  (38)

  Shropshire

  16·6

  (20)

  29·5

  (42)

  39·6

  (35)

  Somerset

  13·7

  (46)

  27·4

  (55)

  37·3

  (48)

  Staffordshire

  12·6

  (60)

  26·5

  (61)

  34·8

  (61)

  Suffolk

  11·4

  (69)

  26·5

  (60)

  37·9

  (44)

  Surrey

  19·3

  (11)

  39·1

  (4)

  51·4

  (3)

  Warwickshire

  16·7

  (19)

  31·2

  (28)

  40·7

  (27)

  West Sussex

  18·9

  (13)

  35·1

  (9)

  47·4

  (6)

  Wiltshire

  13·7

  (44)

  27·2

  (57)

  36·9

  (50)

  Total England

  14·1

  —

  28·4

  —

  37·5

  —

  1 Including Isles of Scilly·

  406 407
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in rank order the percentage of all pupils gaining five or more higher grades A to C at GCSE in 1989, by county education authority in England.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information for 1989 is not yet available. For the latest available information I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Bennett) on 18 January 1990,Official Report, column 333·

  Sciences
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps have been taken to ensure that there is ample provision within the national curriculum to allow for taking the three main sciences separately to O-level standard.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum for science sets out a balanced science curriculum. This includes the material from the three main sciences appropriate at GCSE level as a basis for further study in the separate sciences at A-level. It will be possible for schools to cover the curriculum through separate subject science teaching but decisions on the proposed arrangements for assessment of science at age 16 have not yet been taken.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any evidence of links between spending on education, excluding teachers' salaries, and achievements by children at nine, 13, 16 and 18 years plus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such evidence. Socio-economic background is known to be linked with examination achievement at 16 and 18 years plus; research has indicated that there is no marked correlation between education spending and pupils' achievements once allowance has been made for these links.

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the number of home students currently in higher education, both full-time and sandwich students other than postgraduates in Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole;

  (2) what is the number of full-time home postgraduate students studying at levels beyond first degree in Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is as follows.

  Home students in higher education in the United Kingdom by country of study and level of courses, 1987–88

  Country of study

  Postgraduate

  First degree and other higher education

  Total

  England

  37·7

  405·6

  443·2

  Wales

  2·6

  27·1

  29·7

  Scotland

  6·0

  70·8

  76·8

  408

  Country of study

  Postgraduate

  First degree and other higher education

  Total

  Northern Ireland1

  1·3

  14·5

  15·8

  United Kingdom

  47·6

  517·9

  565·5

  1 Data for students in higher education outside universities relate to 1986–87·

  Source: Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, 1989 edition (HMSO).

  Derby City Technology College
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he is using to decide on the establishment of a city technology college in Derby.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The criteria for choice of city technology college locations are set out in the booklet "City Technology Colleges—A New Choice of School", published in October 1986. This is available in the Library. My right hon. Friend will make his decision with regard to these criteria and in the light of comments received during the consultation he is currently undertaking with interested parties in the area.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much private sector money has been(a) pledged and (b) received for the proposed city technology college in Derby.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of £1·15 million has so far been promised by the private sector for the proposed Derby city technology college. Of this sum, £233,000 has been received.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to ensure that progress regarding planning permission for the land for the city technology college in Derby is halted pending the conclusion of the consultation process.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has taken no such steps.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much public sector money has been allocated for the proposed city technology college in Derby.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The total of public sector money spent upon the proposed city technology college in Derby amounted to £1·145 million by the end of May 1990. Apart from some small administrative costs, no further funds have been, or will be, allocated until my right hon. Friend has made his decision upon the proposal.

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to issue guidelines for consultation for the establishment of a city technology college; and if he will lay them before Parliament.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend will be issuing no such guidelines. He will take decisions concerning the proposals to establish city technology colleges on which he is currently consulting in the light of all comments received from any interested parties.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department's library maintains an online database which records every document published by the Department. Comprehensive printed lists are generated each month and cumulated annually. They are available to the public.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he has made for calculating the general schools budget of a local education authority with regard to funding of grant-maintained schools should all the schools within that local education authority become grant maintained.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend will keep in mind the prospective need for such arrangements as the grant-maintained sector grows.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of those primary schools which(a) have closed in England during the last three years, (b) have been considered by him and their closure approved and (c) have been considered by him and their closure rescinded; and if he will give for each school the number of pupils attending.
  410
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: I have today written to the hon. Member with the information he requested. Copies have been placed in the Library.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My office is situated in the Cabinet Office, which complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspection officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by the Duchy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Each outgoing document from my private office is recorded in a document register. Each document is given a unique number and various details are recorded such as the date of the letter, security classification, subject, to whom the document was referred to and its file number.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passsed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained in full, (d) retained in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.
  411
  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No Privy Council Office document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with the duties under the Act, my Department ensures all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Privy Council Office complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Privy Council Office registry operates a numerical cataloguing system to classify and record documents by subject matter, for example, the relevant Act of Parliament in the case of papers relating to the discharge of statutory function, or the name of the relevant organisation in the case of charter matters. My office and that of the Lord Privy Seal have separate sub-systems for registering papers, also by subject.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Fees Office
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment has been made of the adequacy of the equipment and staffing numbers available to the Fees Office.

  Mr. Beith
  The number and grades of staff in the Fees Office, as in other offices and Departments of the House, are periodically reviewed by the Staff Inspector; and his recommendations, and those of the Board of Management, are submitted for consideration by the Commission. The Staff Inspector has recently completed a review of the staffing complement of the Fees Office at the grade of higher executive officer and below. His report will be considered by the Commission in due course, after appropriate consultation with the relevant trade unions and management. Computers and similar equipment are supplied to the Fees Office on the basis of the needs identified by the Accountant and the Head of the Administration Department and on the advice of the Computer Officer. I am not aware of any inadequacies in the staffing and equipment of the Fees Office that are not currently being addressed through these well-established procedures.

PRIME MINISTER

  NATO Meeting
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister what was discussed during her visit on 7 June to the NATO Ministers meeting.

  The Prime Minister
  I held a short meeting with the United States Secretary of State, during which he briefed me on the United States-Soviet meeting in Washington. I then made a speech over lunch with NATO Foreign Ministers, before leaving for the Soviet Union. A copy of my speech has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister which non-civil-service special advisers accompanied her on official visits abroad on each of the last 11 years; and what was their cost to public funds, in real terms.

  The Prime Minister
  For years before 1987–88 the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Since 1 April 1987, no special adviser who is not a career civil servant has accompanied me on an official visit abroad.

  European Council, Dublin
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to paragraph 2 of annex 1 of the communique of the Dublin European Council she will place in the Library the suggestions and written contributions submitted by member states, together with the analysis of the issues made by the Foreign Ministers of the member states.

  The Prime Minister
  The examination and analysis carried out by the Foreign Ministers, as requested by the 28 April meeting of the European Council in Dublin, is contained in annex I of the Presidency conclusions. No other document was prepared. It is for the governments concerned to decide whether they wish to make public their written contributions to that examination.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent meeting with President Gorbachev in Moscow, she discussed the forthcoming fourth quinquennial review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Prime Minister what systems she employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by her office; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Documents to and from my office are dealt with in accordance with established registry practices.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria she uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  The Prime Minister
  The guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation.
  413
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 she estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Records Office in censored form, (c) retained in full, (d) retained in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  The Prime Minister
  No document falls for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  European Council, Dublin
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she supported the re-appointment of Mr. Jacques Delors as president of the European Commission at the meeting of the European Council in Dublin; what alternative candidates were considered; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I seconded the presidency's proposal to re-appoint Mr. Jacques Delors as President of the European Commission for a further two years, which was carried by acclaim.

  Gifts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list all gifts received in her official capacity from(a) domestic and (b) overseas sources within the last 12 months; what procedure exists for receiving and documenting such gifts; and what becomes of them.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she has taken to investigate the document, sent to her by Colin Wallace on 10 June alleging links between Charles Haughey and the IRA.

  The Prime Minister
  A reply will be sent on my behalf to Mr. Wallace's letter of 10 June.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Civil Servants (Workplaces)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessments under Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have been undertaken at all workplaces used by civil servants in his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  The responsibility for complying with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 414
  (COSHH) within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been delegated to line managers who are familiar with local working arrangements and potential hazards. Technical assistance is available both from safety officers on their staff and from the departmental health and safety unit.

  COSHH assessments of work activities which are liable to expose Ministry employees to substances hazardous to health have been undertaken both in respect of premises which are occupied by the Ministry and in respect of premises which are occupied by third parties but where Ministry employees use or may be exposed to such substances.

  Detailed records are not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  The COSHH regulations impose a commitment to review assessments and this is a process which continues within the Ministry.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions had been taken by his Department since the publication of the seventh report of the Royal Commission on environmental protection in response to its recommendations in respect of(a) independent assessments of the performance of waste treatment plant, (b) the resources needed by the farm waste unit and (c) the need for a review of the advisory material on waste management.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department provides a service to manufacturers for the independent assessment of the performance of waste treatment equipment and storage facilities. In 1987, the farm and countryside service was established within ADAS and the farm waste unit was incorporated within the mechanisation discipline of that service. This has strengthened the Ministry's ability to provide advice on environmental issues including farm waste disposal. The Department published, in 1985, the code of good agricultural practice which provides guidance to farmers on ways to reduce the risk of farm pollution of water courses.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount paid to farmers under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme in each of the designated areas; what is his estimate of the total savings in common agricultural policy expenditure arising from the scheme in each area; and what was the total amount received from the EEC to offset the payments made.

  Mr. Curry
  The costs of the annual payments made to farmers who signed ESA agreements up to 31 March 1990 are shown for the 10 English ESAs in the table. The EC reimbursed £0·762 million towards ESA payments made during the calendar year ending 31 December 1989. The economic studies which will throw light on any savings made under the CAP are not yet complete.

  Annual cost of ESA agreements signed up to 31 March 1990

  ESA

  £ million

  Broads

  1·784

  Pennine Dales

  0·957

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  0·826

  415

  ESA

  £ million

  South Downs

  0·580

  West Penwith

  0·351

  Breckland

  0·454

  North Peak

  0·729

  Shropshire Borders

  0·585

  Suffolk River Valleys

  0·902

  Test Valley

  0·026

  Scrapie
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has investigated the possibility that the scrapie agent could be transmitted to cattle through contact with the scrapie-infected placenta of ewes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no evidence that such transmission occurs. If it does, it is apparently of no consequence since sheep and cattle have been in close contact for many years without a scrapie-like disease becoming established in cattle in the past. Epidemiological studies have show that BSE was most probably caused by feeding cattle with compound feedstuffs containing protein derived from scrapie-infected sheep.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names of the members, and the organisations they represent, of the joint consultative committee of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Curry
  Membership of the committee is as follows:

  Sir Michael Franklin KCB, CMG

  Independent Chairman

  Mrs. M. Barnett

  PMB Consumers Liaison Committee

  Mrs. H. Millar

  National Consumer Council

  Mr. L. G. Price

  Retail Fruit Trade Federation

  Mr. R. Murdy

  British Retailers Association

  Mr. R. Newborough

  Produce Packaging and Marketing Association

  Mr. J. McArthur

  Scottish Potato Trades Association

  Mr. K. G. Axworthy

  National Federation of Fish Friers

  Mr. T. Charlesworth

  Potato processors Association

  Mr. C. M. A. McCarthy

  Mr. C. W. Login

  National Joint Council of British Potato and Vegetable Merchants Association

  Mr. R. Pooley

  Federation of Agriculture Co-operatives UK

  Mr. J. Arbuckle

  National Farmers Union of Scotland

  Mr. D. J. T. Piccaver

  National Farmers Union of England and Wales

  Mr. J. H. Gittins

  Mr. D. B. Sinclair

  Potato Marketing Board

  Mr. F. C. Newbold

  Mr. C. A. Strawson

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will refer back to the Potato Marketing Board the proposed amendments to the existing potato marketing scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  No. The board's proposals were duly submitted to me after full consultation with the industry, and will be implemented soon.

  Animal Classification
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to persuade his EC counterparts to change the classification of animals from agricultural products to sentient beings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I fully accept that animals need proper care and must not be treated in the same way as inanimate goods. Rather than press for a new classification, however, the Government prefer to concentrate on negotiating tangible and enforceable welfare safeguards in the Community on protection of animals on farms, during transport and at the place of slaughter.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department follows a comprehensive procedure for the documents it generates both to meet the requirements of the Public Records Acts and to ensure uniformity of treatment throughout. Documents are allocated to files which are identified by a subject code and number. Within files each document is individually numbered. The movement of all files is recorded.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Curry
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on the the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Stubble Burning
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the criteria for temporary exemptions from the proposed ban under the Environmental Protection Bill's provisions on stubble burning.

  Mr. Curry
  Decisions on the need for an extent of any temporary exemptions can only be taken once the ban is in place and in the light of circumstances affecting particular crops in particular areas and particular weather conditions. I expect such exemptions to be strictly limited to exceptional circumstances.

  EC Extensification Scheme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for implementing the European Community extensification scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friends and I have decided to introduce pilot extensification schemes for beef and sheep under the Community rules. Cash incentives will be made available to about 100 participating producers in selected livestock areas who are prepared to reduce their production by at least 20 per cent. over a period of five years. Apart from reducing livestock production on these farms, the schemes should bring environmental benefits through the less-intensive use of land and a reduced requirement for fertilisers and pesticides. I shall place in the Library information on the rules of the scheme.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Know-how Fund
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways were small companies being encouraged to be involved in the range of activities under the know-how fund for Poland and Hungary; what procedures a small company needs to go through to be involved in this project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have already had a large number of applications from small firms inquiring about opportunities under the know-how fund. Many of the applications are in the field of management training and we will soon be evaluating these proposals in the light of various managment sector missions that we have sent to eastern Europe.

  There are also opportunities for small and medium firms to benefit from two recently inaugurated schemes, one for assistance with pre-feasibility investment schemes, the other for assistance with joint venture training.

  Companies should apply to the joint assessment unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office if their interest lies in any of these areas.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on activities to date of the know-how fund.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many separate projects have been identified under the know-how fund for eastern Europe.
  418
  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 14 March at column 236, and to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) on 13 June at column 213· Seventy-nine projects were listed in those two replies. Since then we have agreed the following projects:

  Czechoslovakia

  A conference on privatisation to be held in Prague in September—26,000·

  Contribution to the United Kingdom transport costs of Czechoslovak agricultural students undertaking practical attachments with British farmers—£1,000·

  Symposium on the construction sector to be held in Prague in July—£5,000·

  Hungary

  Co-operation between the Open University and the Hungarian Open Business School—£56,000·

  Visit of both Hungarian State Insurance Supervisors to the United Kingdom—£4,000·

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether aid for developing countries to adopt chlorofluorocarbons substitutes will be additional to the current aid budget; and if he has anything to add to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 343, concerning the amount of aid to be given for this purpose over the next three years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain's contribution of up to $15 million to the funding mechanism to help developing countries meet their obligations under the strengthened Montreal protocol will be separate from the aid budget to developing countries. It will form part of a new and separate item in the ODA's expenditure plans.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on which councils in Wales are requiring payment of the poll tax in(a) 12 instalments and (b) 10 instalments.

  Mr. Grist
  Under the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989, charging authorities are permitted to enter into agreements with chargepayers for payment of community charges other than in accordance with the instalments scheme prescribed in those regulations. Information about the use made of these powers is not held centrally.

  Tourism
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales representations he has received concerning the development of gites type tourist facilities in rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations. The Wales tourist board's "Hafod" promotion of high-quality self-catering accommodation in rural areas forms part of the board's overall rural marketing strategy, but cannot be directly compared to gites type accommodation, which is of more variable quality.
  419
  The Wales tourist board examined the possibility of creating a gites type system for Wales in 1982, but concluded that the general standards of accommodation would be unlikely to reach an acceptable level.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out in full the terms of reference for the recent study undertaken on behalf of the Welsh Office by the University of Manchester in relation to the development of the all-Wales strategy for mental health.

  Mr. Grist
  The study has been commissioned to show, with particular reference to the work of social services departments, the extent to which current services conform to the objectives of the all-Wales mental illness strategy and to indentify factors which either promote or inhibit its fulfilment.

  Health Organisations
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list any new bodies, joint committees or co-ordinating organisations which he intends shall be established in Wales, or have already been established, whether on an all-Wales basis or on a regional or local basis, in respect of the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, "Working for Patients", "Caring for People" and associated Government initiatives.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the details he has sought on the organisational framework for implementing the White Paper proposals and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Health Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the district health authorities in Wales which have completed their register of capital assets; and if he will give the number of entries made on each register.

  Mr. Grist
  All health authorities with the exception of Clwyd and Gwynedd have completed their capital asset registers. Clwyd health authority has listed all its assets, but some 20 per cent. of its non-property assets have yet to be valued. Gwynedd has listed 95 per cent. of its assets and valued 90 per cent. Details of the numbers of entries included in each register are not held centrally.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales under what circumstances he would allow a higher than normal proportion of any capital receipts accruing to any district health authority in Wales to be used in respect of revenue expenditure; and what process would have to be followed on seeking such approval.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 29 June 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the gross revenue expenditure of each district health authority in 1982–83 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  Accounts information for 1989–90 is not yet available. The gross revenue expenditure of each district health authority in 1982–83 was as follows:
  420

  £000

  Clwyd

  64,286

  East Dyfed

  39,797

  Gwent

  79,892

  Gwynedd

  37,233

  Mid Glamorgan

  91,103

  Pembrokeshire

  13,002

  Powys

  18,537

  South Glamorgan

  107,851

  West Glamorgan

  61,807

  Wales

  513,508

  Source: Health authorities annual accounts.

  Nurses
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many grading appeals in respect of nursing staff have been successful in(a) Wales and (b) the East Dyfed health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  Latest information on the number of successful grading appeals made at local level to employing authorities is as follows:

  Number

  Wales

  482

  East Dyfed

  58

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many grading appeals in respect of nursing staff in(a) Wales and (b) the East Dyfed health authority are outstanding.

  Mr. Grist
  Latest information on the number of outstanding regrading appeals made at local level to employing authorities is as follows:

  Number

  Wales

  3,088

  East Dyfed

  177

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average time a patient awaited treatment in each Welsh district health authority in March 1982 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Grist
  Median waiting times are usually calculated on a calendar year basis. The figures given in the table relate to in-patients and day cases admitted as waiting list cases and discharged during 1982 and 1989.

  Median waiting times (days)

  District health authourity

  1982

  1989

  Clwyd

  44

  51

  East Dyfed

  36

  42

  Gwent

  57

  54

  Gwynedd

  34

  35

  Mid Glamorgan

  47

  35

  Pembrokeshire

  56

  44

  Powys

  41

  29

  South Glamorgan

  36

  32

  West Glamorgan

  56

  58

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of people on the waiting list for each district health authority in March 1982 and at the latest available date.
  421
  Mr. Grist
  The information is shown in the tables:

  Waiting lists 1982 and 1989 Number of patients on district health authority waiting lists Table 1: On 31 March 1982

  Out-patients

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Pembrokeshire

  1,799

  1,914

  385

  Clwyd

  4,616

  4,100

  599

  East Dyfed

  3,518

  1,584

  196

  Gwent

  8,453

  6,660

  963

  Gwynedd

  3,157

  1,632

  388

  Mid Glamorgan

  14,110

  7,642

  29

  Powys

  282

  61

  0

  South Glamorgan

  12,979

  4,972

  678

  West Glamorgan

  14,136

  4,063

  101

  Waiting lists 1982 and 1989 Number of patients on district health authority waiting lists Table 2: On 30 September 1989

  Out-patients

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Pembrokeshire

  3,373

  2,618

  1,053

  Clwyd

  10,177

  5,389

  844

  East Dyfed

  6,328

  3,443

  369

  Gwent

  13,190

  9,504

  1,672

  Gwynedd

  5,265

  3,476

  589

  Mid Glamorgan

  17,171

  6,930

  514

  Powys

  1,096

  61

  1

  South Glamorgan

  16,087

  6,582

  1,564

  West Glamorgan

  14,820

  6,328

  405

  Corlan Housing Association
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the cost to public funds of the proposed takeover of the Corlan housing association and associated companies by Wales and West housing association.

  Mr. Grist
  The long-term cost to public funds is expected to be nil. However certain moneys owed to Housing for Wales by the Corlan housing association are not expected to be repaid in the current financial year and are being rescheduled as a short term interest bearing loan.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received relating to the finances of the Corlan housing association and its proposed takeover by Wales and West housing association.

  Mr. Grist
  In all, 20 letters and five petitions have been received. My right hon. Friend has met with a deputation representing the staff and tenants of the association.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether information arising from the HACAS inquiry into the financial crisis at the Corlan housing association has been supplied to(a) the South Wales constabulary, (b) the Director of Public Prosecutions and (c) the Serious Fraud Office.

  Mr. Grist
  The inquiry instituted by Housing for Wales into the affairs of the Corlan housing association is continuing.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the impact on the number of new houses and flats to be constructed in the social housing category in Wales in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, of the finances of the Corlan housing association and its proposed takeover by Wales and West housing association.
  422
  Mr. Grist
  Housing for Wales has made alternative arrangements for the completion of grant aided schemes under construction by the Corlan housing association. The social housing programme is not expected to be significantly affected; the completion of some schemes will be delayed by a few weeks beyond the date originally anticipated.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to place a copy of the HACAS report into the financing at Corlan housing association in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Grist
  Housing for Wales is responsible for the inquiry into the affairs of the Corlan housing association. It is not customary to publish reports of inquiries carried out under section 28 of the Housing Associations Act 1985.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Copies of documents created by my Department are as a general rule placed on numbered registered files which are indexed by subject.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanant preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with Public Record Office inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Health Authority Staff
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what what the number of(a) nurses and midwives, (b) doctors and dentists and (c) all direct care staff,

  423
  including (a) and (b) for each district health authority in: (a) 1982 and (b) 1990, expressed as whole-time equivalents.

  Staff in post as at 30 September (whole-time equivalents)

  Nurses and midwives

  Doctors and dentists1

  Direct care staff2

  1982

  1989

  1982

  1988

  1982

  19893

  Clwyd

  3,503

  3,635

  273

  283

  4,215

  4,524

  East Dyfed

  1,966

  2,151

  173

  201

  2,404

  2,719

  Gwent

  4,141

  4,412

  338

  365

  5,050

  5,537

  Gwynedd

  1,890

  2,113

  152

  161

  2,312

  2,655

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,918

  5,392

  379

  420

  5,874

  6,570

  Pembrokeshire

  631

  743

  60

  75

  782

  965

  Powys

  1,092

  1,144

  33

  37

  1,221

  1,313

  South Glamorgan

  4,607

  4,946

  644

  682

  6,371

  7,106

  West Glamorgan

  3,161

  3,495

  301

  321

  3,961

  4,497

  1 Excluding hospital practitioners, clinical assistants and locums·

  2 Nurses and midwives, medical and dental, professional and technical staff·

  3 Using 1988 figures for medical and dental staff as 1989 figures are not yet available·

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of(a) in-patients treated, (b) out-patients treated and (c) day cases for each district health authority in (i) 1982 and (ii) 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  Details of in-patients, out-patients and day cases treated in each district health authority in Wales in 1982 and 1988–89 are published in the relevant issues of "Hospital Bed Use Statistics" copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Quarrying
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policy towards the extension of existing quarries in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Advice on planning applications for mineral extraction is given in the series of minerals planning guidance notes—MPGs—issued jointly by the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment. MPG1—"General considerations and the Development Plan System"—reasserts the Government's policy that all minerals applications in areas of outstanding natural beauty"should be subject to the most rigorous examination"·

  Health Service Capital Schemes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the major capital schemes costing over £1 million which have been completed since 1982, are in process of construction or which are planned for each district health authority.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  The information is given in the table. Schemes planned comprise those for which approval in principle has been given.

  Major health building schemes costing over £1 million Health district and scheme

  1. Completed since 1982

  Clwyd

  Ysbyty Maelor Wrexham, Scheme 1

  Mold Community Hospital

  Chirk Community Hospital

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd—

  Scanner Suite and Equipment

  424
  Mr. Grist
  The available information is given in the table.

  Multi Disciplinary Training Unit

  East Dyfed

  Prince Philip Hospital

  St. David's Hospital Carmarthen—

  New Ward Block

  Bryntirion Hospital development

  Gwent

  Royal Gwent Hospital, Scheme 6

  Nevill Hall Hospital, Outpatients Department

  Tredegar General Hospital Upgrading

  Gwynedd

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Llandudno Hospital Development

  Mid Glamorgan

  Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend

  St. Tydfils Hospital Development

  Powys

  Ystrandgynlais Community Hospital

  South Glamorgan

  University Hospital of Wales (UHW)—

  Medical Genetics Centre

  Remedial Works

  Llandough Hospital Obstetric Unit

  Rookwood Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre

  West Glamorgan

  Morriston Hospital Development, Schemes 1, 2 and 3

  Singleton Hospital

  Pathology Department

  Physical Medicine Department

  Main Kitchen

  Boiler House

  Infrastructure Works

  Sterile Products Unit

  Gorseinon Hospital Upgrading

  Neath Hospital Outpatients Department

  2. Under Construction

  Clwyd

  Deeside Community Hospital

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, Phase 2

  East Dyfed

  Amman Valley Hospital development

  Gwent

  Llanfrechfa Grange Hospital—Central Laundry

  Blackwood Acute Mental Illness Unit

  Mid Glamorgan

  425

  Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr, Phase 2

  Ysbyty George Thomas

  Aberdare General Hospital Geriatric Unit

  East Glamorgan General Hospital Geriatric Unit

  Pembrokeshire

  Withybush Hospital Re-roofing

  Powys

  Machynlleth Hospital Development

  South Glamorgan

  University Hospital of Wales (UHW)—

  Paediatric Cardiac Unit

  Cardiac Catheter Laboratories

  New Telephone Switchboard

  Replacement Energy Sources

  Upgrading of Intensive Care and Coronary Care Unit

  Velindre Hospital, Linear Accelerator Suite

  West Glamorgan

  Singleton Hospital West Ward Block

  Tonna Hospital Redevelopment

  Morriston Hospital School of Nursing

  3. Planned

  Clwyd

  Ysbyty Maelor Wrexham, Phase 2

  Hollywell Community Hospital

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd Mental Illness Unit

  East Dyfed

  West Wales General Hospital Upgrading

  Gwent

  Torfaen Acute Mental Illness Unit

  Abergavenny Acute Mental Illness Unit

  Ebbw Vale Community Hospital

  Gwynedd

  Cefni Hospital New Ward Unit and Rehabilitation Facilities

  South Glamorgan

  University Hospital of Wales (UHW)—

  MRI Scanner

  New Kitchen

  West Glamorgan

  Morriston Hospital—

  Scheme 4

  Pathology Department

  Singleton Hospital—

  Linear Accelerators

  Staff Residences

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manhole Covers
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to restrict the import of manhole covers from India.

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials are currently considering with the industry whether there is evidence of serious injury to domestic producers arising directly from the import of manhole covers from India which might justify a call for safeguard restrictions. Any decision to impose restrictions would ultimately be a matter for the European Community.

  Engineering Council
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received a copy of the Engineering Council report published on 29 May concerning the Government's assistance to manufacturing industry to encourage innovation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Engineering Council published a press release on 29 May on its written evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology which is looking at "Innovation in Manufacturing Industry". My Department has given both oral and written evidence to this inquiry. The Government will respond in the normal manner to the Select Committee's findings once its report has been published.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the publication, in draft form, of the European Community Green Paper on postal services.

  Mr. Forth
  The European Commission expects to publish the Green Paper on postal services towards the end of the year.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate changes in share ownership of TVS Entertainment Ltd. and other companies holding ITV franchises.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 June, at column 25. The provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 operate without prejudice to the Fair Trading Act 1973. Under the latter, the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to keep himself informed of mergers and proposed mergers. If changes in the share ownership of a company holding an ITV franchise gave rise to a merger situation qualifying under the Fair Trading Act for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission he would advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Forth
  Department of Trade and Industry estimates relate to files reviewed and are for(a) 4·3 per

  427
  cent·–4,463, (b) nil, (c) 7·3 per cent. –7,540 retained for second review, (d) nil, (e) 88·4 per cent. –91,339, (f) nil, (g) nil.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what system he employes to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department of Trade and Industry raises and registers files by number and title, incorporating relevant documents, using widely accepted filing conventions for paper records.

  Girobank
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the sale of Girobank to be completed.

  Mr. Forth
  I am pleased to announce that the sale of Girobank by the Post Office to the Alliance and Leicester Building Society was completed today. When the sale of Girobank was announced in June 1988, we set out a number of factors which we and the Post Office agreed would be important in evaluating bids. I am fully satisfied that the sale to Alliance and Leicester meets these points. Alliance and Leicester is clearly well placed to develop and expand Girobank's business, a major objective of the sale. It will contribute to greater choice in banking services, while preserving the close links between Girobank and Post Office Counters. I am confident that both Girobank's staff and its customers will benefit from its new position in the private sector and I wish Girobank's management and staff well in this new and challenging stage of the bank's development.

  My right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in April 1989 that, following a competitive bid process, the Post Office had agreed to sell Girobank to the Alliance and Leicester Building Society for £130 million, subject to later adjustments to the sale price principally in respect of the difference between the book and market values of Girobank's gilts portfolio. Following these adjustments, the proceeds received by the Post Office will amount to £111·9 million, comprising the repayment of Girobank's subordinated debt issued to it by the Post Office of £39 million, and payment by Alliance and Leicester of £72·9 million for the equity.

  Euroenviron Initiative
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support his Department has given to companies under the Euroenviron initiative; and to what use the measures were put.

  Mr. Forth
  Since the launch of Eureka Euroeviron in the United Kingdom on 23 January 1990, three research proposals involving United Kingdom companies have been approved for which the total DTI grant amounts of £1·2 million over three years. The projects will investigate a new technique for incinerating plastic shredder residues from car breaking with heat recovery and no emission of toxic fumes; the development of an ultra-low emission dry cleaning machine, and research into the recovery, and re-use for high quality goods, of plastic materials derived from automobile production and disposal.
  428
  The DTI has supported four successful regional seminars on Euroenviron since the London launch; a further nine are planned. These are maintaining the momentum developed by the initiative.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Small Independent Brewers Association regarding the implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received no representations from the Small Independent Brewers' Association since 1 May 1990, when the measures to ensure that tenants of the major brewers were free to take a guest beer came into effect. Specific complaints should be put to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what monitoring he is undertaking of the practical effects of the implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on brewing.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Director General of Fair Trading is monitoring compliance with the measures and has taken steps to keep their effects under review.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet a delegation of the Small Independent Brewers Association to discuss the tactics of the big five breweries against Small Independent Breweries Association products since the implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.

  Mr. Redwood
  I should be happy to consider any request for a meeting. However the Director General of Fair Trading is monitoring compliance with the measures we have introduced, and it is important that any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour is passed to his office.

  Scottish Consumer Council
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants he has made to the Scottish Consumer Council in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The grant in aid paid by my Department to the Scottish Consumer Council, through the National Consumer Council, in each of the last five years with an estimate for the current year is as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  203,100

  1986–87

  215,796

  1987–88

  218,534

  1988–89

  238,076

  1989–90

  243,113

  11990–91

  271,000

  1 Estimate·

  Air Fares
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in the reduction of air fares within the European Economic Community; and if he is able to provide some examples of specific reductions.
  429
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Community Council of Transport Ministers meeting on 18 June agreed on a second stage of air transport liberalisation measures and committed themselves to complete a single market in aviation by the end of 1992. The agreement reached will give airlines greater freedom to set innovative fares and take advantage of more open access to the market. The setting of fare levels is a matter for airlines' commercial judgment. However, where the United Kingdom has already concluded liberal bilateral agreements with other countries, fares have come down.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the contract was signed for the appointment of Imagination to be the co-ordinator of the share offer presentations for the forthcoming offers for sale of the successor companies to the area electricity boards in England and Wales.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I announced the joint appointment, with the 12 regional electricity companies, of Imagination as co-ordinators of the share offer presentations for the forthcoming offers for the sale of the 12 RECs on 4 May 1990, after terms and conditions had been agreed. A formal contract incorporating these terms and conditions is being prepared.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 468, whether any of the estate agents advising on electricity privatisation have consulted him regarding any potential conflict of interest.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Before they were appointed all the property advisers assured my Department that they had no conflict of interest with their appointment. As I said in my reply of 16 February to the hon. Member, the contracts with these firms require them to consult me regarding potential conflict of interest. I am satisfied that these arrangements have enabled my Department to ensure that any such potential conflicts are avoided.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, columns 454–58, if he will list any changes in the companies retained by him to advise on electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Since I last replied the following changes have taken place in the Department's contracts with advisers.

  The following contracts have come to an end:

  Adviser and Area

  Lloyds Bank—Receiving Bank and Registrar

  Lamb and Edge—Property Valuers

  Grimley J. R. Eve—Property Valuers

  Gerald Eve—Property Valuers

  Knight Frank Rutley—Property Valuers

  Weatherall Green and Smith—Property Valuers

  Debenham Tewson and Cheshire—Property Valuers

  Hartnell Taylor and Cook—Property Valuers

  Connell Hallum and Brackett—Property Valuers

  Matthews and Goodman—Property Valuers

  Cook and Arkwright—Property Valuers

  Bernard Thorpe—Property Valuers

  Henry Butcher—Property Valuers

  430

  Lloyd Northover—Design Consultants

  New contracts have been concluded with:

  Adviser and Area

  Price Waterhouse—Reporting accountants

  Russell Reynolds—Recruitment consultants for Chairmanship, National Power

  R. L. Associates—Setting X for Area Boards

  Lincoln Hannah—Press cutting service

  Imagination—Roadshow organisers

  WCRS—Flotation advertising

  Debenhams Tewson and Chinnocks—Property Valuers

  Edward Erdman—Property Valuers

  Rowe and Pitman—Brokers (in the process of being formally appointed)

  In addition, a number of operational contractors have been or are in the process of being employed to provide the major flotation operations:

  (i) the Share Information Office;

  (ii) printing; and,

  (iii) share application processing·

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to publish the valuations of the assets of the electricity supply industry which have been carried out by the firms of estate agents that are advising him.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The reports of the surveyors are commercially confidential documents.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the firms of estate agents for the 12 electricity distribution companies, the National Grid Company, PowerGen and National Power appointed jointly with his Department were chosen by competitive tender.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government's central adviser. Jones Lang Wootton, was appointed by a competitive process. The valuers for the 12 regional electricity companies, the National Grid Company, PowerGen and National Power were joint appointments with the industry. These were either chosen by a competitive process or on the basis of existing arrangements with the individual companies concerned. For example, valuers who had recently advised a company were often picked in the interest of obtaining their accumulated knowledge and expertise with the related downward pressure on fees. This is an established practice in privatisation exercises. In all such cases the fees chargeable were renegotiated as if their selection had been on the basis of a competitive process. The Department drove a hard bargain in these cases and succeeded in obtaining charge rates which were well below the companies' normal commercial rates.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether annex B to the Cabinet Office guidelines on Government publicity applies to his specialist PR and marketing adviser and the PR and marketing adviser to his Department and the electricity supply industry;

  (2) whether page 10 of the document entitled "The Government Information Officer" applies to his special PR and marketing adviser and the PR and marketing adviser to his Department and the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have nothing to add to the letter I wrote to the hon. Member on 11 April 1990 on these matters.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has anything to add to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 167, about James Capel's advice to journalists.
  431
  Mr. Wakeham
  James Capel has not advised journalists of the value at which the electricity supply industry will be sold. It is in any case much too early to produce a meaningful estimate of the likely proceeds of the sale. Exactly how James Capel respond to speculation or questions about the likely proceeds which appear in the press is a matter for it.

  Hinkley Point C
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the report of the Hinkley Point C inquiry before he announces his decision and before the House rises for the summer adjournment.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I set out how I intend to handle the report of the Hinkley Point C public inquiry in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodford and Wanstead (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 14 June, at column 287·

  The report is long and detailed, and I am considering it carefully. I am not yet able to say whether I shall have reached a conclusion before the House rises.

  Cullen Inquiry
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive the report of the Cullen inquiry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The timing of the report is a matter for Lord Cullen. I look forward to receiving it when it is available.

  National Power
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what firms of recruitment consultants have been employed to assist him in appointing a new chairman of National Power; and what is the cost to public funds.

  Mr. Baldry
  Russell Reynolds Associates has been appointed to assist my Department in finding a chairman of National Power. The fees being paid are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the selection of the new chairman of National Power.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 14 May,Official Report, column 317·

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  to ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on the the Public Record Office in
  432
  censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  All documents raised in the Department are held on registered files.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (M. Kirkwood), 25 June,Official Report, column 115, what contingency plans his Department has to facilitate or undertake third-stage decommissioning in the event of the operators of nuclear power stations having inadequate resources to do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) of 6 March 1990 at column 556·

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will place a report on the breakdown of the £990 million avoidable costs that would be saved by cancellation of the Sizewell B nuclear power station in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc. The precise breakdown of the avoidable cost is commercially confidential. I have already indicated that the breakdown can be made available on this basis by the company to the Energy Select Committee if the Committee wishes.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive Nuclear Electric's review of its financial position.

  Mr. Wakeham
  We continue to review Nuclear Electric's financial position with the company's management and auditors. This work is nearing completion. The company's opening report and accounts will be published during the summer.

THE ARTS

  Museums and Galleries (Maintenance)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what further donations have been received from the private sector for the maintenance of museums and galleries since he last reported to the House.

  Mr. Luce
  The national museums and galleries which I sponsor receive continual support from the private and commercial sector for the maintenance and enhancement of their buildings.

  Recent notable successes include the new Japanese galleries at the British museum, made possible by a £5 million public appeal in this country and Japan.

  Repertory Theatres
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the financial position of the repertory theatres in London and the regions.

  Mr. Luce
  At the end of March, cumulative deficits for building-based drama companies funded directly by the Arts Council represented about 6 per cent. of their total turnover. This figure conceals a wide variation in the performance of individual companies and takes no account of this year's substantial increase in Arts Council grants.

  Opera
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last officially visited the opera; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I attended a performance of Mozart's "La Clemenza Di Tito" at the Guildhall school of music and drama on 18 June.

  Regional Film Theatres
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to meet the British Film Institute to discuss the development of regional film theatres.

  Mr. Luce
  I regularly meet the chairman of the British Film Institute to discuss current issues.

  National Gallery
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the trustees of the national gallery to discuss their buildings and exhibits.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet frequently the trustees and directors of all the national museums and galleries which I sponsor to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Community Theatre
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what financial support was provided in 1989 by(a) the Arts Council and (b) regional arts associations for community theatre productions.

  Mr. Luce
  Both the Arts Council and the regional arts associations fund a large number of companies which give performances in small-scale local venues.

  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Minister for the Arts in light of the recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of James v· Eastleigh Borough Council, what advice he is now offering to museums and galleries in respect of concessionary admission charges for elderly people.

  Mr. Luce
  I shall ensure that the national museums and galleries which I sponsor are aware of this recent decision by the House of Lords.

  British Film Institute
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the British Film Institute to discuss its future plans for film production.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman and director of the British Film Institute from time to time. A wide variety of matters is discussed.

  Wilding Report
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received following his statement on the Wilding report.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received representations from a wide range of interested organisations and individuals.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing the Wilding report reforms.

  Mr. Luce
  Since I announced on 13 March my proposals for a new structure of arts funding, good progress has been made by Mr. Mason, the manager of the reforms. The steering group I established has met regularly, and in addition, working groups of the interested parties are looking at detailed issues. As a result I hope to announce further decisions in the near future.

  Theatre Royal, Bristol
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to visit the Theatre Royal, Bristol.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to change the regulations for Government support for business sponsorship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I recently announced a number of changes to the rules of my business sponsorship incentive scheme when it resumed in April of this year. The changes enable the scheme to focus on first-time sponsors and I am delighted that it is proving more effective than ever in bringing new money to the arts.

  Liverpool Theatres
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will vist the Playhouse and Everyman threatres, Liverpool.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to visit either of the two theatres at present.

  West Yorkshire Playhouse
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends next to vist the West Yorkshire Playhouse, Leeds.

  Mr. Luce
  I shall be visiting the West Yorkshire Playhouse on 24 July.

  Courtauld Gallery
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to vist the new Courtauld gallery.

  Mr. Luce
  I visited Somerset house for a preview of the new Courtauld galleries in May and was delighted to attend the reception to celebrate the opening of the galleries, in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen Mother, on 12 June.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet Mr. Palumbo regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of museums and galleries are located outside south-east England.

  Mr. Luce
  According to the museums data base project, published in 1987, 67·5 per cent. of museums and galleries in Great Britain and Northern Ireland are located outside south-east England.

  Haymarket Theatre, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will visit the Haymarket theatre, Leicester.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Natural History Museum
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from civil service trades unions on the effects of the level of funding for the natural history museum.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received no formal representations from civil service trade unions about the level of funding at the natural history museum.

  However, I understand that at a recent meeting between the Office of Arts and Libraries and Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists (IPMS) representatives, the IPMS outlined its concerns about the museum's proposals, including the level of funding. My officials have subsequently briefed me on the outcome of the meeting.

  Future funding for the natural history museum will be considered in conjunction with funding bids received from other national museums and galleries.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from academics about the effects of the level of funding for the natural history museum.
  436
  Mr. Luce
  I have received many representations from members of the academic community about the level of funding for the natural history museum.

  I will be considering future funding for the natural history museum in conjunction with funding bids received from other national museums and galleries.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from the institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists about the effects of the level of funding for the natural history museum.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received no formal representations from trade unions about the level of funding at the natural history museum.

  However, I understand that at a recent meeting between the Office of Arts and Libraries and Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists (IPMS) representatives, the IPMS outlined its concerns about the museum's proposals, including the level of funding. My officials have subsequently briefed me on the discussion. I shall be meeting the chairman and director of the museum to discuss their plans in the near future.

  Future funding for the natural history museum will be considered in conjunction with funding bids received from other national museums and galleries.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on his actions following the Adjournment debate on Wednesday 20 June to help funding problems at the natural history museum.

  Mr. Luce
  The natural history museum has submitted to me its corporate plan for the years 1990 to 1995. My officials will discuss the plan with the museum next month in the context of the corporate plan discussions held with all the national museums and galleries I sponsor. I will consider fully the points raised in the Adjournment debate on Wednesday 20 June before making the financial allocations to the national museums and galleries to be announced this autumn. I shall be meeting the chairman and director of the natural history museum to discuss their strategy and the wider issues.

ENVIRONMENT

  Disabled People (Access to Sporting Events)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding access to sporting events for people with disabilities, following publication of the Taylor report.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We have received no such representations. Better access for disabled people to sporting events was recommended in my review report "Building on Ability" published in August 1989. I believe that improvements to football grounds as recommended in Lord Justice Taylor's report provide the opportunity to improve access for disabled people to this type of sports facility.

  Blue Plaques
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are to be made to sponsor and regulate the commemorative blue plaques in London of eminent literary and artistic persons.
  437
  Mr. Trippier
  The present arrangements are set out in paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1985. This provides that"The [Historic Buildings and Monuments] Commission may in Greater London, and a London borough council may in its borough—

  (a) provide; and

  (b) on any conspicuous part of a house, building or place, with the consent of its owner, erect,

  a commemorative plaque, tablet or sign indicating an event or matter of public interest in connection with the house, building or place or its site, and may in that area, with the like consent, maintain any such plaque, tablet or sign erected by it or by any other person or body, whether before or after the passing of this Act·"

  There are no plans to change this provision.

  The commission has been operating a commemorative plaques scheme since April 1986 and has erected 35 plaques on London buildings. The commission also maintains a variety of commemorative plaques erected during the last hundred years by the Royal Society of Arts, London county council and the Greater London council. Information is not available on schemes operated by London boroughs.

  The commission is always prepared to consider fresh suggestions for commemorative plaques.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public sector and private sector properties are currently estimated to be standing empty in England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 27 February 1990 to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) at columns 180–81·

  For information about Wales, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Census Statistics
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he took to determine that the use of the statistics available from the 1981 census in order to determine the distribution of central support for local authority expenditures provides a sufficient and reliable means of recognising the particular needs and conditions of those local authorities which have experienced change since that study.

  Mr. Chope
  We use the latest information available on a consistent basis for all local authorities in calculating entitlements to revenue support grant. For a number of social characteristics of local authorities the information from the 1981 census of population is the latest available on this basis.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of, and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 438
  30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. But in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department operates in accordance with procedures agreed with the Public Record Office, which are designed to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Public Records Act 1958.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether either his Department or the Nature Conservancy Council will be represented on the United Kingdom delegation to the special consultative meeting of Antarctic treaty parties to discuss comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment to be held in Santiago, Chile in November.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: The composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the meeting in Santiago has not yet been decided. I will consider the matter in due course with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who has overall responsibility for the Government's policy on the Antarctic.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he or his Department have had with conservation experts in Australia with regard to the Australian Government's refusal to sign the convention for the regulation of Antarctic minerals resources and proposals to declare Antarctica a wilderness reserve.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: Norte.

  Planning Legislation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to planning legislation in England and Wales; and whether he has any plans to abolish county structure plans.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: The White Paper "The Future of Development Plans" (Cm

  439
  569), published in January 1989, set out the Government's proposals for the reform of the development plan system. Other legislative proposals have been the subject of recent consultation papers. Further announcements will be made in due course about the timing and content of any legislation.

  Charitable Housing Associations
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in devising a new system of portable discounts to enable tenants of charitable housing associations to purchase their own homes; and when he expects this to be in operation.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: The Housing Corporation has now introduced a new scheme, known as the tenants' incentive scheme, under which registered housing associations, whether or not charitable, may give grants to assist their tenants to move out and buy homes of their own.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make an order under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 confirming the charge caps on those local authorities which neither accepted the caps he proposed nor put forward alternative amounts within the statutory period of 28 days of their being designated for capping.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 June 1990, c. 477–78]: I have today laid before the House a draft order, under section 104 of the 1988 Act, setting out my decisions on the final caps of 16 authorities which did not accept the caps which I proposed for them and put forward alternative amounts within the 28-day period. I have carefully considered the cases which the authorities made in support of the figures which they suggested. In the case of Brent, Southwark and Wigan I have decided to increase the caps which I proposed for them by £2·5 million, £2·5 million and £2 million respectively. In the case of the other 13 authorities I have decided to confirm their caps at the level I originally proposed.

  The 16 authorities and their caps included in the draft order are as follows:

  Implied reduction in budget

  £

  £ million

  £ per adult

  Avon

  507,100,000

  26·6

  37

  Barnsley

  132,000,000

  10·0

  59

  Brent

  244,200,000

  5·1

  26

  Calderdale

  125,400,000

  7·5

  52

  Derbyshire

  520,600,000

  40·0

  56

  Greenwich

  203,000,000

  10·0

  65

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  155,800,000

  11·7

  99

  Haringey

  206,500,000

  10·0

  71

  Islington

  185,800,000

  3·7

  30

  Lambeth

  285,100,000

  8·8

  51

  North Tyneside

  122,900,000

  6·8

  45

  Rochdale

  144,000,000

  8·0

  51

  Rotherham

  157,500,000

  7·9

  39

  St. Helens

  122,800,000

  3·9

  29

  Southwark

  229,400,000

  11·6

  71

  Wigan

  192,600,000

  8·0

  34

  440
  As I said on 6 June in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), I laid before the House that day a draft section 104 order confirming Hillingdon's cap.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate how many people have refused to pay the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 June 1990 c. 261]: This information is not available centrally but reports indicate that in many authorities over 80 per cent. of charge payers have begun to make payments and there are very few cases of wilful refusal to pay.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will direct Scottish Homes to turn over to the relevant district councils the property maintained by them on behalf of their tenants and recent owner-occupiers of Scottish Homes; and if he will make the finance available to the district council for this adoption to take place.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for Scottish Homes, in discussion with individual district councils to decide whether it is appropriate to make alternative arrangements for future maintenance of common amenities. Responsibility for bearing a proportionate share of the burden of common charges is clearly set out in the sales agreement under which former tenants of Scottish Homes have purchased their houses.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of the poll tax transitional allowances scheme in Scotland in 1989–90 if the calculation of benefit had been based on the actual poll tax paid by each applicant in that year rather than the notional figure used in the present scheme.

  Mr. Rifkind
  It was never the intenion to base the scheme on charges higher than those considered necessary by the Government to maintain local authority services in the transition from domestic rates to the community charge. A range of projections was made when the scheme was under consideration which included the use of actual rather than assumed charges.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what he estimates will be the total cost for the transitional allowance for the poll tax for the financial year 1990–91; how many people he expects will benefit from transitional allowances in that year; and what the average payment per head will be;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of the transitional allowance for the poll tax in Scotland in the financial year 1989–90; how many poll tax payers will benefit; and what the average payment per head will be.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Formal returns have not yet been made to the Scottish Office by local authorities of the numbers of people entitled to relief and the amount of relief awarded either individually or in total. Figures so far received by
  441
  my Department of the numbers entitled to relief and of the cost are both informal and incomplete and do not provide an adequate basis for making a reliable estimate of the kind sought by the hon. Member.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Forestry Commission will be withholding grants from Economic Forestry Group plc in relation to its applications for woodland grant in view of the damage to sites of archaeological importance at Tarland and Ashkirktown; whether it intends to initiate prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The damage done to these archaeological sites was in clear breach of the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme approvals which required that they should be protected. The commission will therefore be witholding grants on both applications. The Tarland site was not scheduled; a decision has still to be taken on the question of a prosecution in respect of the damage done to the scheduled Ashkirktown site.

  Kidney Disease
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of renal units; and how many persons are receiving kidney dialysis treatment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are 12 units in Scotland providing treatment for around 900 patients per annum.

  Benefit (Young People)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has made to the statement of the president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents of 18 May on the effects of changes in the payments system on young people no longer able to qualify for benefit.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am placing in the Library the official unrevised copy of the speech which I made at the annual meeting of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents on 18 May in response to the remarks of the president of the association. I may have added some impromptu remarks.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of, and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The records of the Scottish Office are specifically exempted from the Public Records Act 1958, but broadly similar procedures are followed with a view to transferring records to the Scottish Record Office. No document falls due for such selection and transfer until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation will he reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur 442
  disproportionate cost. There is an obligation under the Act to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which a Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Scottish Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with the SRO inspecting officer.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Because of the large number involved no attempt is made to classify, log and record each document, although a standard registry system is in operation which provides for the opening, titling, indexing and maintenance of official files.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many agency-based nurses are employed on a casual labour basis in(a) Scottish and (b) Glasgow hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about agency nurses is collected twice yearly and the average whole-time equivalents for the quarter ending 31 March 1990 for Scotland and Glasgow hospitals are 215 and 127 respectively.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to reduce the number of trained, experienced nurses who rely for employment on agency-based casual labour; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government do not have a policy of direction of labour and nurses are free to seek employment in the public, private or voluntary sectors.

  Halons
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that every precaution is taken in Scottish hospitals to prevent release of halons in the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The use of halogens in Scottish hospitals is not widespread and is mainly confined to fire extinguishers used to combat small and incipient fires in specialised areas such as computer or electrical installations, where a suitable alternative is not available and where the overall safety of patients and staff is paramount.

  School Assemblies
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to education authorities concerning religious observance at school assemblies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: A draft circular on religious education and religious observance was issued for consultation on 29 March 1990. Reponses are currently being studied.

  School Buses
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to education authorities concerning child safety on school buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The safety of pupils using transport made available by education authorities is the responsibility of the authority concerned. Authorities have a duty of care arising from the common law, and also specifically from the provisions in the Schools (Safety and Supervision of Pupils) (Scotland) 1990 Regulations.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many children travel to school each day by school bus in each education authority area.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The information requested, taken from a survey undertaken in October 1989 and assembled by education authority area, is as follows:

  Region

  Children receiving free transport by bus

  Borders

  3,243

  Central

  7,532

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9,205

  Fife

  14,495

  Grampian

  16,249

  Highland

  9,478

  Lothian

  10,037

  Strathclyde

  52,126

  Tayside

  6,790

  Orkney

  1,322

  Shetland

  1,810

  Western Isles

  2,048

  TOTAL

  134,335

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to education authorities concerning the criteria to be applied in determining whether a child qualifies to travel to and from school by school bus.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: Education authorities are required by the terms of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to make free travel arrangements for pupils who live outwith the statutory walking distance from school. The Act defines the statutory walking distance as being two miles for pupils under the age of eight years and three miles for any other pupils. Authorities have discretion to provide free travel arrangements in other circumstances.

  Community Care
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make available to local authorities sufficient funding to allow them to provide domiciliary night care facilities as an integral part of their community care programmes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make available to Strathclyde regional council the extra funding needed to allow the council to provide community care facilities for the handicapped.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: It is for local authorities to decide on the allocation of funds to particular services for which they may be responsible. I am aware that Strathclyde regional council already provides an extensive range of services for handicapped people and other persons requiring care in the community and that these include domiciliary services extending to some provision for night care.

  Water Supply (Aluminium Levels)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the supply zones for which applications have been made for authorisation to relax the standard for aluminium set in the water regulations; and whether in each case he proposes to give consent.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: Relaxation of the standard has been requested and authorised in respect of naturally-occurring aluminium in the following supply zones:

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Black Esk

  Penwhirn

  Carsphairn

  New Abbey

  Wanlockhead

  Palnure

  Grampian

  Inverurie—Newbigging (until 1995)

  Strathdon

  Highland

  Ardvasar/Dariach

  Balmacara

  Beauly Firth

  Carbost

  Dornie

  Drumbeg

  Durness

  Glendale

  Kentallen

  Kilchoan

  Kilmaluag

  Kilmuir

  Kinlochbervie

  Laid

  Mellon Udrigle

  Melness

  Nedd

  Onich

  Penifiler

  Poolewe

  Portree

  Raasay

  Scourie

  Shieldaig

  Spean Bridge

  Spey Valley—Blackpark

  Strontian

  Uig/Idrigill

  Strathclyde

  Brodick (until 2000)

  Catacol (until 1997)

  445

  Kilmory/Sliddery (until 1998)

  Lochranza (until 2000)

  Pirnmill (until 1997)

  Loch Gair (until 1996)

  Portnahaven (until 1991)

  Nerebolls (until 1991)

  Craighouse (until 1999)

  Ross of Mull (until 1994)

  Kilberry (until 1999)

  Arinagour (until 1997)

  Iona (until 1995)

  Mulindry (until 1994)

  New Abbey Water Supply
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the New Abbey water supply in Dumfries and Galloway will meet the European Community drinking water standard for aluminium at the end of 1990 when the article 20 delay expires.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: Because of naturally-occurring aluminium in the source water, the supply concerned will not always meet the standard. A relaxation of the standard has been authorised to cover this for the time being, but the water authority intends to develop schemes to remove the need for such relaxation.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the supply zones which are the subject of the new article 9 designations which he referred to in his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 727·

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: The additional derogations for naturally occurring aluminium referred to in my answer of 20 February relate to the following supply zones:

  Dumfries and Galloway—Black Esk and Lochinvar·

  Highland—Beauly Firth and Spey Valley·

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 727, what target dates have been agreed for compliance with the standards for aluminium, nitrate and bacteria listed in the water regulations for each of the individual water supply zones.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: Water authorities have given undertakings to carry out improvement programmes in which the target dates fro compliance with the aluminium standard are as follows:

  Date

  Borders

  Galashiels

  1992

  Ale

  1996

  Earnscleuch

  1994

  Central

  Alloa

  1990

  Falkirk (part)

  1990

  Cowie, Plean

  1992

  Kirkintilloch

  1994

  Falkirk, Larbert

  1990

  Bridge of Allan

  1995

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Lochfoot (mainly industrial supply)

  1999

  446

  Date

  Killylour

  1992

  Euchan

  1995

  Auchneel (phase 1)

  1992

  Auchneel (new works)

  1997

  Winterhope

  1996

  Grampian

  Fraserburgh

  1993

  Glendye

  1996

  Buckie

  1995

  Glenlatterach

  1994

  Keith

  1994

  Lossiemouth (High Level)

  1994

  Highland

  Achiltibuie

  1997

  Bonar Bridge

  1996

  Caithness (except Wick)

  1996

  Carrbridge

  1997

  Corpach, Caol

  1998

  Culrain

  1997

  Dornoch

  1996

  Dounreay

  1991

  East Ross/Black Isle

  1994

  Garve

  1995

  Golspie/Brora

  1996

  Nairn

  1995

  Roskhill/Dunvegan

  1992

  Strathnairn

  1994

  Wick

  1996

  Lothian

  Edinburgh Fairmilehead (8 zones)

  1997

  Rosebery (5 zones)

  1990

  Hopes (4 zones)

  1995

  Stobshiel (2 zones)

  1994

  Whittinghame (6 zones)

  1994

  Pateshill (8 Zones)

  1992

  Strathclyde

  Afton Supply

  1991

  Kilmaurs

  1993

  Auchenlongford

  1991

  Kilmarnock (N)

  1993

  Kilmarnock (S)

  1993

  Darvel Valley

  1993

  Stewarton

  1993

  Saltcoats/Stevenston

  1993

  Irvine

  1993

  Prestwick

  1993

  Troon

  1993

  Ardeer

  1993

  Ayr

  1993

  Girvan (N)

  1993

  Girvan (S)

  1994

  Skelmorlie

  1995

  Kilbirnie

  1992

  Dumbarton Town

  1996

  Bearsden, Clydebank

  1996

  Howwood, Johnstone

  1991

  Greenock

  1996

  Renfrewshire East

  1995

  Renfrewshire South

  1994

  Inverclyde West

  1996

  Crookfur, Newton Mearns

  1995

  Paisley Town

  1994

  Neilston, Uplawmoor

  1996

  Ardrishaig

  1995

  Campbeltown

  1994

  Carradale

  1992

  Clachan

  1994

  Rothesay

  1994

  Furnace, Minard

  1994

  Inveraray

  1994

  Dunoon, Kilmun etc

  1993

  Muasdale

  1992

  Strachur

  1995

  447

  Date

  Tarbert

  1995

  Tighnabruaich

  1991

  Tobermory

  1993

  Bowmore, Port Ellen

  1993

  Orkney

  Mainland (S and E)

  1994

  Kirkwall

  1996

  Mainland (N and W)

  1997

  Westray

  1994

  Sanday

  1995

  Shetland

  Aith

  1994–95

  Bressay

  1990–91

  Burra Isle

  1992–93

  Cullivoe

  1990–91

  Cunningsburgh

  1991–92

  Gulberwick/Quarff

  1994–95

  Lerwick

  1990–91

  Mid Yell

  1990–91

  Reawick/Skeld

  1996–97

  Sandness

  1995–96

  South Yell

  1990–91

  Sullom Voe

  1990–91

  Walls

  1995–96

  Whalsay

  1995–96

  The nitrate standard is exceeded only occasionally in nine small sources in Grampian region. By 1991, the standard will be met by blending and the sources will be replaced by the following dates:—

  Date

  Grampian

  Auchengoul

  1991

  Auchedly

  1990

  Belhelvie

  1990

  Berefold

  1994

  Easterton

  1995

  Kennethmont

  2000

  Pitcaple

  1991

  Tarves

  1995

  Insch, Largie

  1995

  Improvements to deal with occasional non-compliance with bacteriological standards are scheduled to be made as follows:

  Date

  Borders

  Tweedsmuir

  1994

  Bowland

  1990

  Dumfries and Galloway

  All zones by except

  1990

  Lochfoot

  1991

  Glengap

  1991

  Winterhope

  1991

  Highland

  Achiltibuie

  1997

  Ballachulish

  1992

  Bonar Bridge

  1996

  Bracadale

  1995

  Carrbridge

  1992

  Culrain

  1997

  Durness

  1995

  East Ross/Black Isle

  1992

  Fassfearn

  1997

  Gairloch

  1992

  Garve

  1995

  Harrapool

  1994

  448

  Date

  Helmsdale

  1992

  Inverness Balmore

  1991

  Kinlochbervie

  1991

  Kinlochleven

  1992

  Kyleakin

  1995

  Kyle of Lochalsh

  1992

  Lairg

  1992

  Lochcarron

  1991

  Lochinver

  1992

  Onich

  1992

  Rosehall

  1997

  Roskhill/Dunvegan

  1992

  Ullapool

  1992

  A further 108 small—100 to 1,000 cu m per day—or very small—less than 50 cu m per day—supplies will have improved disinfection installed between 1992 and 1997.

  Date

  Lothian

  Edinburgh, Alnwickhill

  1992

  Edinburgh, Fairmilehead

  1993

  Torduff

  1993

  Castle Moffat

  1993

  Whittinghame

  1994

  North Pentlands

  1993

  Pateshill

  1994

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement as to how many people will benefit from the review of benefits for disabled people set out in "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will benefit from the review of benefits for disabled people set out in "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that some 850,000 people will benefit from the proposals set out in "The Way Ahead" (Cm. 917) and the interim measures we announced in October 1989.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the structure of benefits for disabled people and their carers.

  Mr. Scott
  Our proposals to improve the balance and structure of social security benefits for disabled people and their carers are set out in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm. 917) which we put before the House on 10 January. In 1993–94 the changes will add some £300 million to the £8·3 billion we are already spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers.

  Maintenance
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of his proposals to oblige fathers to provide financial support for their children born out of marriage with whom they no longer reside.

  Mr. Newton
  Social security law has always placed an obligation on parents to maintain their children, and this
  449
  applies just as much to an unmarried father as to any other parent. We are continuing to look at ways of ensuring that parents do as much as possible to meet this obligation.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce proposals resulting from his review of the maintenance system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Action is already being taken to improve the existing arrangements: for example, by various measures included in the current Social Security Bill, by the proposals recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office to make court orders more effective, and by giving greater emphasis to work in DSS offices on recovering maintenance. A wide-ranging review is in progress, with the aim of making proposals for reform later this year.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made towards securing greater recovery of the costs of child support from divorced and separated fathers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The amount of maintenance recovered from absent parents in respect of their children for whom income support is claimed was £155 million in 1988–89. We have met our target of £180 million for 1989–90, and we expect the sum collected to increase further to £260 million in 1990–91.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to improve the collection of maintenance for lone parents.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government are concerned that so few lone parents receive maintenance. We are taking action to improve the effectiveness of the present system. There are measures in the Social Security Bill and the Home Office have announced proposals on payment arrangements. Our far-reaching review of maintenance is moving forward with all urgency, examining where changes need to be made in the current system in the longer term.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce proposals resulting from his review of the maintenance system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce proposals resulting from his review of the maintenance system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell).

  Benefit Increases
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the net cost of a further increase in the basic retirement pension of £5 for a single person and £8 for a couple if this were extended to income support and to national insurance benefits tied to the pension, and the cost of an increase in child benefit to £8·60 a week.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the net cost of a further increase 450
  in the basic retirement pension of £5 for a single person and £8 for a couple if this were extended to income support and to national insurance benefits tied to the pension, a nd the cost of an increase in child benefit to £8·60 a week.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the net cost of a further increase in the basic retirement pension of £5 for a single person and £8 for a couple if this were extended to income support and to national insurance benefits tied to the pension; and the cost of an increase in child benefit to £8·60 a week.

  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the net cost of a further increase in the basic retirement pension of £5 for a single person and £8 for a couple, if this were extended to income support and to national insurance benefits tied to the pension; and the cost of an increase in child benefits to £8·60 a week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am sure that my hon. Friends, and indeed all hon. Members, will be interested to know that to increase state pensions and related pensions in the way described would cost in the order of £3 billion, and to increase child benefit would have a net cost of £635 million.

  Disabled People (Discrimination)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next intends to meet representatives of disabled persons' organisations to discuss the problem of discrimination against disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  I regularly meet the disability organisations to discuss a wide range of issues. I met the Disability Benefits Consortium—an umbrella group representing over 250 disability organisations—on 5 April in the second of a series of meetings to discuss their views on "The Way Ahead".

  Blind People (Disability Allowance)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make the new disability allowance available to blind people to cover the full range of costs incurred by their disability.

  Mr. Scott
  The new disability allowance, which will extend help to less severely disabled people of working age and below, will benefit people with seeing disabilities who have mobility or care needs. The surveys of disability carried out by the OPCS found that attendance allowance and mobility allowance are well directed towards disabilities causing the heaviest expenditure. These benefits also provide help to people with other disabilities, such as blindness, which are frequently combined with locomotion or self-care disabilities. The new disability allowance will build on that relatively simple framework.

  Computerisation
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he anticipates his Department's computerisation programme will benefit social security claimants.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Computerisation has improved the speed and accuracy with which benefit claims are
  451
  handled. It provides a better service to the public on inquiries. It has enabled us to move benefit processing work out of London to areas where it is easier to recruit and retain good staff—and so provide a better service to our London customers.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many standard rate tax payers would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit from national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many standard rate tax payers would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many standard rate taxpayers would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce).

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding the level of national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Scott
  Representatives of the business community have recently urged us to retain the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions and to keep employers' national insurance contributions as low as possible.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many standard rate taxpayers would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  If the upper earnings limit for employees' National Insurance contributions were removed it is currently estimated that about 3·3 million people would pay more contributions, of whom about 2·1 million people would be standard rate tax payers. If the corresponding upper profits limit for self-employed people were also removed it is estimated that about another 500,000 people would pay more contributions, of whom about 200,000 would be standard rate tax payers.

  War Widows (Pensions)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review the current guidelines governing payment of war widows' pensions.
  452
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no plans to change the existing provisions for war widows pensions.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures the Government are planning to introduce to help those disabled people whose care and mobility needs are less severe.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 5 March at columns 525–26·

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the measures introduced in April to assist sick and disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Improvements made to social security benefits for long-term sick and disabled people in April were as follows:

  (i) an increase in the income support and housing benefit disability premium of £1 for single people and £1·60 for couples above the normal uprating;

  (ii) an increase in the income support and housing benefit disabled child's premium of £8·55 above the normal uprating to bring it into line with the adult disability premium;

  (iii) an increase in the earnings limit for invalid care allowance from £12 to £20;

  (iv) an increase of £6·50 in the therapeutic earnings limit for invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance·

  (v) the extension of attendance allowance to disabled babies under two. Carers of disabled babies will automatically be eligible to claim invalid care allowance·

  (vi) the extension of mobility allowance to people who are deaf and blind

  These measures form the first stage of our plan to provide a better balanced structure of benefits for disabled people as set out in "The Way Ahead" (Cm. 917). Taken together these proposals will provide extra help for some 850,000 people.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the structure of benefits for the most severely disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  The existing benefits structure already recognises that disabled people have extra needs. The OPCS survey findings showed that attendance allowance and mobility allowance are well targeted on the most common of the more costly disabilities. The new disability allowance will build on that framework by offering a relatively simple and readily understood benefit to both severely and moderately disabled people. The closer alignment of invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance with the proposed age-related addition will substantially increase the benefit income of large numbers of very severely disabled people by up to £10 a week at current rates.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the reduction in public expenditure, if child benefit were paid only to households with a gross income of £13,000 per annum or less and for the first two children only.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  About £3·1 billion after allowing for associated extra expenditure of around £185 million on income-related benefits.
  453
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about single parent child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  One-parent benefit is paid in addition to child benefit to a person responsible for bringing up children on his or her own. One-parent benefit provides a worthwhile addition to the income of a lone parent who is working and not dependant on income support. It is now 12 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979.

  Water Filters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision he makes for benefit recipients whose health requires the use of water filters to claim reimbursement for the installation costs of such filters.

  Mr. Scott
  Help with these costs may be available from the social fund. An income support recipient can apply for a community care grant or budgeting loan. Anyone, whether in receipt of income support or not, can apply for a crisis loan if there is serious risk to their health or safety.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much spending on income-related benefits for families with children has increased since April 1988.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Estimated expenditure on income-related benefits for families with children increased by some £280 million in cash terms between 1988–89 and 1989–90. This figure represents the latest available cash estimate based on the annual statistical inquiry and the public expenditure White Paper 1990. It excludes housing benefit paid to unemployed families with children, as this figure cannot be separately identified. It also excludes forecast expenditure for the current financial year.

  Taking into account the additional annual expenditure on family credit compared with family income supplement, the real increases in children's rates in the income-related benefits in April 1989 and the real increases in the income support family premium and adult credit in family credit in the current financial year, the provision—including forecast spending for families with children —now amounts to over £350 million a year extra in real terms compared with the position before the reforms were introduced in April 1988.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the 1985 to 1987 figures on households below average income.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Following the recent report by the Social Services Committee, we have asked DSS statisticians to carry out some additional work on the composition and characteristics of the lowest income group, as the Committee suggested. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member last month explaining that, while this additional work meant that publication would not be possible on the timescale originally envisaged, we had suggested that the statisticians should aim to complete their work within about four to five weeks. This work has not yet been completed.

  Income Support
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what improvements have occurred recently in the quality of service to claimants of income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since the Government reforms were introduced in 1988, the social security system has become simpler for claimants to understand and easier for staff to operate. There have been very real all-round improvements in the standards of service to the public. For example, in 1989–90 the average time taken to clear income support claims improved by 25 per cent. to 4·7 days compared with 1987–88, the last year before the reforms, and error rates fell by 31 per cent. to 7·9 per cent.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the level of income support will be for youth training participants in this financial year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Participants in youth training do not normally receive income support. Instead they receive a training allowance which exceeds the income support rates of personal allowance. The minimum value of the lower and higher levels of the youth training allowance are £29·50 for trainees aged 16 and £35 for trainees aged 17.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure he has for the number of lone parent families in receipt of income support; and how many such families were receiving supplementary benefit five years ago.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest published figures are those quoted in my reply to my hon. Friend on 2 April at column 487·

  Deaf People
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the implications of the recent report "The Way Ahead" for deaf people.

  Mr. Scott
  A number of proposals set out in "The Way Ahead: benefits for disabled people" will benefit people who are deaf. The new disability allowance, which will extend help to less severely disabled people of working age or below, will benefit people who have mobility or care needs. People disabled early in life who have not been able to build up a national insurance contributions record will gain from the introduction of an age related addition in severe disablement allowance; and those who are partially capable of work will be helped by the new disability employment credit, which will make it easier for disabled people to take up or remain in work. Some deaf people win have already benefited from the extension of mobility allowance to people who are both deaf and blind, introduced in April 1990 as part of "The Way Ahead" proposals.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to review the criteria for payment of invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The earnings limit for people receiving invalid care allowance was increased, in April, from £12 to
  455
  £20 per week. The extension of attendance allowance for children under age two from April, and for terminally ill people without the normal six-month waiting period, proposed for October 1990, will enable more carers to qualify for invalid care allowance. We also propose to introduce, from October, a £10 carers premium into income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit for those receiving invalid care allowance.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend housing benefit to include water rates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No. Housing benefit is intended to meet reasonable accommodation costs. Help towards water charges forms an integral part of overall income support levels.

  Carers' Premium
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he expects will benefit from the introduction of the new carers' premium.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We expect the new £10 premium to be introduced in October, to help 30,000 carers through income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Invalidity Pension
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the real increase in value of the invalidity pension since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is as follows:

  £

  Per cent·

  November 1979 rates in cash

  23·30

  —

  April 1990 rate in cash

  46·90

  —

  Per cent. change in real terms

  —

  -3·1

  Per cent. change between uprating periods November 1978–79 to April 1989–90

  —

  5·4

  456
  Notes:

  (i) The figures relate to basic invalidity pension. In addition a claimant may be entitled to Invalidity Allowance and/or Additional Pension.

  (ii) The percentage change between uprating periods is calculated as the percentage change in the average real value of benefits during the uprating periods April 1989 to April 1990, as compared to the period November 1978 to November 1979.

  Departmental Service
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how his Department is planning to improve its service to the public.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since the Government reforms were introduced in 1988, the social security system has become simpler for claimants to understand and easier for staff to operate. There have been very real all-round improvements in the standards of service to the public. Nevertheless, there is still room for further improvement, particularly in inner London. This is being tackled by relocating work which requires no face-to-face contact away from 21 London offices to areas where recruitment and retention of staff is easier. There is already substantial evidence that significant improvements in accuracy, clearance times and quality of service are being made.

  By 1991 the major programme underway to computerise social security operations will bring major improvements in service standards to all local offices. It produces faster and more accurate payments and decisions, and provides fast access to information needed to deal with queries.

  In 1991, the new agency to administer the benefit systems will be established, having as one of its principal aims a high quality service for customers.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether any information has been supplied by Lambeth council to his Department about claims for community charge benefit in that borough.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Community charge benefit caseload data have yet to be supplied by Lambeth council.

  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants were examined by doctors acting on behalf of his Department for the purpose of assessing attendance allowance and mobility allowance claims over the last 12 months; and what was the average fee paid to doctors for such examinations.

  Mr. Scott
  Approximately 700,000 claimants were examined in connection with claims to attendance and mobility allowances in the last 12 months. An average fee figure is not available. The fee per case in the financial year 1989–90 varied between £25·90 and £69·80 depending on the location and the duration of the examination. The great majority of these would be at or near the lower end of that range.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints his Department has received about doctors arising from examinations for mobility allowance and attendance allowance; and how such complaints are dealt with.

  Mr. Scott
  No central record is kept of the number of complaints against examining medical practitioners—EMPs. In fact, many apparent complaints are appeals against the decision made. The number of complaints against the doctors' conduct, manner or behaviour is very small in relation to the 700,000 examinations carried out annually.

  Each of these complaints is investigated by the Department's regional office senior medical officer. The doctor is sent a copy of the report of the examination complained about and of the claimant's complaint and asked for his or her comments. Subsequent action depends on the individual complaint and the past record of the EMP. In extreme cases the doctor's employment on this work may be terminated forthwith and an explanation of the reason sent to him or her.

  If it appears that the doctor requires guidance on the attitude required to be shown to claimants in order to prevent further complaints this is done. If it becomes clear that despite such guidance the doctor is unsuited to the work, for one reason or another, further work is not made available and an explanation is sent to the doctor.

  In all cases a detailed reply is sent to the complainant including, where appropriate, an indication of action which has been taken as a result of the complaint.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical centres his Department operates for the purpose of medical examinations for people who claim mobility allowance; and how many medical centres there are in each region.

  Mr. Scott
  Examinations in connection with initial and renewal claims to mobility allowance are normally carried 458
  out in the examining doctor's own surgery premises. Appeals and references to a medical board are dealt with in the Department's medical adjudication centres which also deal with industrial injuries, war pensions and severe disablement allowance examinations.

  The number of these centres is 94, divided among the regions as follows:

  Numbers

  North-East

  13

  London North

  14

  London South

  11

  Wales/South-West

  17

  Midlands

  14

  North-West

  12

  Scotland

  13

  Earnings Allowance
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for reduced earnings allowance were made in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information is not available because details of claims for industrial injuries benefit do not distinguish between claims for disablement benefit and reduced earnings allowance. However, a special count undertaken last year suggests that about 23,000 claims for reduced earnings allowance were made in 1989.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to commission the study into the costs of residential care and nursing homes outlined in the Government's response to the second report of the House of Commons Social Services Committee of Session 1989–90 (HC 257) on "Community Care: The Future Funding of Private and Voluntary Residential Care".

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have commissioned the management consultants Price Waterhouse to undertake a rapid investigation into the costs of running residential care and nursing homes across the country.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, by category, those statistics his Department maintains or has access to with regard to claims for pensions for industrially-induced deafness.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is maintained on the numbers of successful claims for occupational deafness and those disallowed either on the occupational criteria or on hearing losses below the prescribed standard.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people dropped out of making claims for pensions for noise-induced industrial deafness at the stage where the five-year rule came into effect in(a) St. Helens and (b) the United Kingdom in the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is as follows. In Great Britain during the five-year period April 1985 to March 1990 a total of 11,742 claimants were disallowed because they had not made a claim within five years of
  459
  leaving the relevant occupation—the provision intended by regulation 25 of the Industrial Injuries (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985. They were not, therefore, referred for audiometric testing to establish whether they satisfied the necessary level of hearing loss. For St. Helens the relevant figure for the four-year period to March 1990 is 107 claimants. Individual figures for St. Helens are no longer available for periods before April 1986.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what systems he employs to classify log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department receives and generates many millions of documents in the course of its business, and it would be impracticable, and disproportionately costly, to record these individually. However, the vast majority are placed with related documents, on registered files in accordance with well-established registry practices.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No document falls for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Record Act will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reported payments were actually made under the Vaccine Damage Payment Act, for the past five years up until the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The figures are in the table.
  460

  Year

  Payments

  1985

  26

  1986

  25

  1987

  9

  1988

  4

  1989

  4

  Note:

  Payment is often made in a different year to that in which the award decision is made because of the need to set up a trust fund.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of running the vaccine damage payment scheme for the last three years up until the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  £

  1987

  1310,000

  1988

  1155,000

  1989

  1105,000

  1 Figures contain both administrative costs and payments made under the Act·

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications his Department received last year for payments under the Vaccine Damage Payment Act; and what were the figures for each year from 1985.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Number of applications

  1985

  79

  1986

  79

  1987

  65

  1988

  39

  1989

  53

  Income Support
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher),Official Report, 21 June, column 707, if he will give, for the latest date available, a list of the offices with the number of cases with a poll tax deduction in place.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest count, completed in May 1990, showed that 22 offices in Scotland had income support cases with a deduction to clear community charge arrears. Up to this date no deductions had been taken in England and Wales. The table records the offices and the number of such deductions in each office.

  Local Office

  Number of cases

  Airdrie

  1

  Ayr

  145

  Bathgate

  19

  Bellshill

  28

  Clydebank

  7

  Cumbernauld

  1

  Dumbarton

  37

  East Kilbride

  49

  Falkirk

  746

  Galashiels

  264

  Glasgow (Anniesland)

  20

  Glasgow (Bridgetown)

  36

  461

  Local Office

  Number of cases

  Glasgow (Maryhill)

  20

  Glasgow (Parkhead)

  17

  Glasgow (Partick)

  123

  Glasgow (Provan)

  154

  Glasgow (Springburn)

  73

  Hamilton

  2

  Johnstone

  16

  Motherwell

  3

  Stirling

  672

  Stranraer

  1

DEFENCE

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the results of the recent survey in which military and civilian air traffic controllers were required to report all infringements of rule 21 and rule 36 airspace.

  Mr. Neubert
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand, however, that the results of this survey, which was completed on 30 June, have not yet been analysed.

  HMS Centurion
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the new security blockhouse/gatehouse at HMS Centurion cannot be used.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The installation will not be in use until ancillary works and some external roadworks have been completed.

  Regency Net and Cemetery Net Systems
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) at which Royal Air Force, Royal Air Force/United States Air Force and United States Air Force bases in the United Kingdom there are facilities of the regency net and cemetery net systems;

  (2) what is the purpose of the regency net antenna being erected at RAF St. Mawgan.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Cemetery net is a command and control system for United States Commander in Chief Europe. There are cemetery net facilities currently located at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Greenham Common. Regency net is intended as a successor to cemetery net. Details of the regency net configuration are classified, although I can confirm that a facility is currently being planned for RAF St. Mawgan.

  Regiments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his reply of 14 June,Official Report, columns 326–27 concerning regiments, if he will give the total annual cost of each regiment listed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for what plans he has to produce a new edition of his Department's booklet entitled "Defence and the Environment"; and if he will include information on low-flying training, and the measures taken to reduce its environmental impact.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no plans at present to produce a new edition of this booklet. However, the actions taken by the Department to protect the environment, and to minimise the adverse effects of its essential activities, were recently summarised on pages 51–52 of the 1990 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" (Cm. 1022-I). This included information on measures taken to reduce the environmental impact of low-flying training.

  Atlantis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is participating in the United States space shuttle Atlantis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to participate in the United States space shuttle Atlantis.

  Training and Consultancy Services
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department and the armed forces have taken to contract out training and consultancy services to small companies; what contracts on what subjects have been let in the last two years; what value these contracts were for; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  We continue to review and market test support activities including training and consultancy services and to award contracts where it is demonstrated that they will provide the best value for money. The choice of contractor will depend entirely upon the proposals received following normal competitive tender action. Small firms are encouraged to participate in this process whenever possible through the Ministry of Defence's successful small firms initiative, and by the new suppliers service of MOD.

  Complete figures on training and consultancy services are not held centrally but it has been possible to identify a number of contracts let over the past two years in the following areas:

  Year

  Number of contracts

  Total value (£)

  Driver training

  1988–89

  16

  305,680

  1989–90

  19

  168,000

  Technical support services

  1988–89

  2

  593,486

  1989–90

  6

  524,020

  Academic services

  1988–89

  Nil

  Nil

  1989–90

  2

  2,048,870

  In addition, details of management and computer consultancy contracts for the last two years were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) by my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the then

  463
  Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on 28 March 1990 at column 236 and 4 April 1989 at column 130·

  Stornoway Airport
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the prohibition of practice approaches by military aircraft at Stornoway airport took effect.

  Mr. Neubert
  The prohibition of non-essential overshoots by Tornado F3 aircraft based at RAF Stornoway when it is active came into effect for the latest activation, from 25 to 29 June. The prohibition will be extended to visiting aircraft in time for the next activation in September.

  RAF Shackleton Crash
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the investigation into the RAF Shackleton crash on Harris on 30 April.

  Mr. Neubert
  A military aircraft accident summary will be published once the report of the board of inquiry has been completed.

  St. David's Airfield, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) navigational lights and (b) security lights will be provided on the proposed over-the-horizon radar at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire; and at what height and distance they will be visible.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are no plans to include navigational lights on the proposed over-the-horizon radar at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire. The whole question of lighting will, however, be fully addressed in the environmental impact assessment.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any non-Ministry of Defence sites were included in the 166 sites examined for the over-the-horizon radar proposed for St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. All the 166 sites considered for the installation of either the transmitter or the receiver for the proposed trial of the over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom were already in Ministry of Defence use.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the proposed landscaping of the over-the-horizon radar site at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Proposals for landscaping of the over-the-horizon radar site at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, will be addressed in the environmental impact assessment.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in current flight patterns, including take-offs and landings, will be necessary at RAF Brawdy if the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation is constructed on the St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  If the proposed over-the-horizon radar is built at St. David's airfield, minor adjustments in the 464
  radar pattern and westerly departure routes from RAF Brawdy may be necessary. There will be no impact on safety or operations at RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what alternative arrangements are proposed to provide RAF Brawdy with an emergency landing strip if the present one at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, is used for the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  St. David's airfield is not normally designated as an emergency landing strip for RAF Brawdy. A number of airfields will remain available to aircraft on training flights from RAF Brawdy in an emergency. Which is used would depend on where the training flight took place, and weather conditions.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 19 June,Official Report, column 782, if he will make a statement on other means by which radar cover could be provided similar to that proposed as a result of the installation of over-the-horizon radar at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  At present, radar coverage of the United Kingdom air defence region to the north of the United Kingdom is provided principally by airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft, supplemented by shipborne radars, ground-based microwave radars in the United Kingdom, and allied ground-based systems in Iceland and Norway. Studies have concluded that a northward-looking over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) located in this country could make a particular contribution to the air defence of the United Kingdom by providing wide area coverage of a considerable proportion of the Norwegian sea. This would allow greater flexibility and efficiency in the use of scarce air defence assets that would otherwise have to fulfil this role; it would also allow frequent coverage of areas where the regular use of AEW aircraft would be uneconomic.

  Alternative methods of providing similar coverage to an OTHR, such as space-based radar or additonal AEW aircraft, would cost substantially more.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Department complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with PRO inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public
  465
  Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, Departments are obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Department may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what system he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Documents in the Ministry of Defence are normally placed on departmental files and processed in accordance with departmental instructions and registry practices.

  Dishonesty Offences
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the nature of the offence and (b) the sentence for each of the soldiers currently serving sentences for dishonesty at Colchester military corrective training centre.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  British Aerospace
  >Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 26 June, on how many occasions in the last six months he has been in communication with British Aerospace regarding the future equipment requirements of the armed forces.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence has regular contacts with British Aerospace on a wide range of procurement issues.

  Service Personnel (Scotland)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are stationed in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 1 July 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, 20,035 service personnel were stationed in Scotland.

  Catering Firms
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information on Army training schedules is normally provided to private catering firms that have won Army contracts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Catering firms that win Army contracts are given the information necessary to enable the company to provide the required service. Such information is given in the contract document. Contracts with firms providing catering facilities to summer camps have hitherto included the location and dates of the particular event, and the name of the unit attending camp. Instructions have been given that in future the name of the unit should not appear in the contract.

  Tornado
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he discussed with British Aerospace the possibility of not authorising work on the order for the eighth batch of Tornado aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence maintains close and detailed discussions with all its main suppliers; the timing and content of these discussions is commercially confidential between the Ministry of Defence and the suppliers.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 25 June, when he informed British Aerospace of his decision not to authorise work on the order for the eighth batch of Tornado aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The contracting authority for the Tornado is the NATO Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Development and Production Management Agency (NAMMA). It was informed of the decision on 18 June. British Aerospace was advised informally on the same day.

  Deansway Catering
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the security classification of the list given to Deansway Catering detailing training schedules for the Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No list was provided to Deansway Catering Company Ltd. detailing training schedules. Information on the contracted tasks was provided in the individual contracts for the specific events. The contract documents bore no security classification.

  Combat Aircraft
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 26 June, about assessed need for combat aircraft, in which sections of the 1989 and 1990 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" the assessed need for combat aircraft is described.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As I pointed out in my reply of 26 June, at column 199, the assessed need for combat aircrft has been reflected in the plans described in successive "Statements on the Defence Estimates". In the case of the 1989 and 1990 statements, I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 329 and 330 and tables 4 and 5 and to paragraphs 315 and 316 and table 5 respectively.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of service personnel in Scotland will receive reimbursement due to high community charges.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Eleven per cent. of those service personnel living in service accommodation, in the current year, will receive refunds of part of their accommodation charges as a result of community charges which exceed the service average by more than £1 per week.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.
  467
  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).

  Agencies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what further agencies will be established in the next four months.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has to create further next steps agencies.

  Mr. Luce
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor today launched the Land Registry as an executive agency. This takes the total number of established agencies to 32, together employing some 80,000 staff. In addition, I expect the national physical laboratory and national engineering laboratory to be launched as executive agencies soon.

EMPLOYMENT

  Liverpool Skill Centre
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions took place between his Department and METEL prior to the dismissal of the Liverpool skill centre staff including the timing of these discussions.

  Mr. Eggar
  The sale negotiations with Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd—METEL—for the Liverpool skill centre were carried out by the Department's professional advisers, Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte. The negotiations extended over a period of months and were concluded on 14 May.

  As far as staff redundancies were concerned, METEL had made it clear, prior to the sale, to staff, trade unions, and the Department that they would need to restructure the business, and that redundancies were expected. The speed with which the redundancies came, and that they affected all staff, was not signalled in the pre-sale discussions, and was a great disappointment to the Department.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions were made in respect of the numbers of people to be employed at the METEL skill centre in Liverpool after its sale.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 June 1990]: The skill centre was sold as a going concern, and no specific provisions were made in respect of the exact number to be employed by METEL after completion of the sale.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the staff working at the Liverpool skill centre were dismissed on 15 May; and if he was informed that the dismissals would take place prior to the sale of the skill centre.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: All the staff working at the Liverpool skill centre on 15 May 1990 were made redundant. The Department was not informed, prior to the sale, that all staff would be dismissed.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the recognised trade unions were consulted about the dismissals on redundancy terms of the staff of the Liverpool skill centre, in line with the Employment Act 1975; and if he will make a statement.
  468
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: On completion of the sale of the Liverpool skill centre, the issues of trade union recognition and consultation on redundancies became matters for the new owners.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of Liverpool skillcentre as a training centre.

  Mr. Eggar
  The sale of the training business at the Liverpool skill centre to Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Limited was negotiated on the basis that it would continue to operate as a training business. Now that the centre is in the private sector, it is for METEL to determine the future of the business. However, I have no reason to believe that METEL will not continue to operate a training business from the centre.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if will he give details of how the severance payments to the staff of the Liverpool skill centre who have been dismissed will be funded.

  Mr. Eggar
  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Limited, which purchased the business of the Liverpool skill centre, made it clear, prior to the sale, to staff, trade unions, and the Department that they would need to restructure the business, and that redundancies were expected. In negotiating the price for the training business, some allowance was made for anticipated redundancies. It will be for METEL to pay the severance payments agreed with staff.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to offer reinstatement into the civil service to the staff of the Liverpool skill centre who have been dismissed.

  Mr. Eggar
  An agreement has been reached with the trade unions concerned for my Department to give preferential consideration to applications for reinstatement from staff employed in the Skills Training Agency—STA—immediately before the sales were concluded, including those at the Liverpool skill centre, if they are made redundant in the private sector within three years of completion of the sales. Within the terms of the agreement everything that can be done to help staff from the Liverpool skill centre will be done.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effect on training provision in the Liverpool area of the Liverpool skill centre developments.

  Mr. Eggar
  Now that the Liverpool skill centre is in the private sector it is for the purchaser, Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Limited to determine the future of the business. I have no reason to believe that the sale of the Liverpool skill centre to METEL will adversely affect training provision in the Liverpool area.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many businesses started under the enterprise alowance scheme in each year since 1982; how many businesses folded after the first year; and how many continued operating into the(a) second, (b) third, (c) fourth, (d) fifth, (e) sixth, (f) seventh, (g) eighth and (h) ninth year.
  469
  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers of businesses started under the enterprise allowance scheme are as follows:

  Financial year

  Total number

  February 1982 to July 1983 (pilot in five parts of the country)

  3,331

  August 1983 to March 1984 (national implementation)

  27,629

  1984–85

  46,037

  1985–86

  60,037

  1986–87

  86,751

  1987–88

  106,305

  1988–89

  98,522

  1989–90

  77,886

  April 1990 to May 1990

  12,662

  Information on the number of businesses which folded after the first year, and those which continued operating into further years is not collected from all former scheme participants. However, regular national follow-up surveys are undertaken and the latest show that of businesses completing a full year on the scheme 74 per cent. were still trading six months later, 9 per cent. were in paid employment or other self-employment, and 15 per cent. were unemployed. The remaining 2 per cent. were sick, retired, or provided no answer; and two years later 65 per cent. were still trading.

  Job Clubs
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, how many people(a) have joined job clubs, and (b) have left job clubs, from 1 April 1989 to the latest possible date; and (c) what were their destinations, showing how many entered a job, employment training, or another positive scheme;

  (2) what information he has about the relative value for money of internal job clubs and agency job clubs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Restart Courses
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether unemployed claimants who have been out of work for over two years and who are quarterly attenders will be required to attend restart courses if they turn down the offer of a place on another scheme from this autumn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes. The requirement to attend a restart course will apply to all claimants who have been unemployed for two years or more and who, at subsequent restart interviews, refuse all offers of help made to them.

  Unemployed Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed claimants in each month since 9 October 1989, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, have been(a) issued with warning letters for not actually seeking work, (b) had their claims referred to an adjudication officer for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims (i) allowed or (ii) disallowed and (d) have been referred to an adjudication officer for refusing suitable employment; and how many of those in (d) have had their benefit disqualified.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Hotel and Catering Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for the future of hotel and catering training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" set out the Government's view that independent and voluntary arrangements are more likely to be effective than those agreed by statute.

  In November 1989 the Government accepted proposals put forward by the chairman of the hotel and catering training board for new independent training arrangements in the hotel and catering industry. These new arrangements were prepared following full consultation with the main employer associations in the industry.

  TVEI, St. Helens
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on technical and vocational education initiative spending in St. Helens, with special reference to any budgetary changes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The St. Helens TVEI pilot programme, which started in 1986, has a budget of £2 million. A total of £1·3 million has been spent up to 31 March 1990. St. Helens enters the extension phase of TVEI in September 1990. A sum of £238,000 has been offered for the first year of the extension phase.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the number of(a) deaths, (b) major injuries, (c) minor injuries and (d) dangerous occurances in the construction industry for each year from 1974 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for Great Britain is provided in the tables. Data for the latest year commencing 1 April 1989 are not yet available.
  471

  Injuries occurring within the construction industry, as reported to all Health and Safety Commission/Health and Safety Executive enforcing authorities

  Year

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Non-employed

  Fatal

  Major2

  Over three day3

  Fatal

  Major2

  Over three day3

  Fatal

  Major2

  Over three day3

  11974

  166

  6

  34,432

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  11975

  182

  6

  35,397

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  11976

  156

  6

  35,983

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  11977

  130

  6

  32,685

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  11978

  121

  6

  33,679

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  11979

  119

  6

  31,654

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  11980

  128

  6

  29,362

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  1981

  105

  1,690

  44,072

  11

  40

  6

  12

  36

  6

  1982

  100

  1,950

  39,062

  18

  51

  6

  13

  33

  6

  1983

  118

  2,178

  6

  22

  57

  6

  11

  66

  6

  1984

  100

  2,288

  6

  17

  70

  6

  7

  75

  6

  1985

  104

  2,239

  6

  22

  113

  6

  13

  78

  6

  41986–87

  99

  2,736

  16,468

  26

  443

  704

  14

  162

  6

  41987–88

  103

  2,767

  16,622

  40

  561

  763

  15

  153

  6

  4 51988–89

  100

  2,865

  16,240

  36

  755

  975

  14

  130

  6

  1 Injuries reported to Health and Safety Executive's Factory Inspectorate only·

  2 As defined under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 for the years 1981 to 1985 and under the wider definition of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 for subsequent years·

  3 Injuries causing incapacity for work for more than three days reported directly to enforcing authorities under the Factories Act for the years 1974 to 1980 and under RIDDOR for the years 1986–87 onwards. Data for 1981–82 based on claims notified via the DHSS for industrial injury benefit·

  4 Year commencing 1 April·

  5 Provisional·

  6 Not available·

  Dangerous occurrences occurring within the construction industry as reported to Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates1

  Date

  Number of dangerous occurrences2

  1981

  377

  1982

  378

  1983

  404

  1984

  368

  1985

  408

  1986–87

  637

  1987–88

  636

  31988–89

  739

  1 As defined under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (NADOR) for the years 1981–85, and under the wider definition of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) for subsequent years·

  2 Details of accidents occurring in the construction industry reported to other authorities are not readily available·

  3 Provisional·

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many sites have been given preventive workplace inspection by a Health and Safety Executive inspector(a) weekly, (b) monthly and (c) never, as a proportion of the total.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested. Workplaces for which the Health and Safety Executive is the enforcing authority receive preventive inspections at intervals which vary according to risk and need, rather than at any fixed frequency.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stretford, 24 April,Official Report, column 174, about health and safety offences, what criteria are used to decide whether a case is passed to the Crown prosecution service; and which body decides whether to initiate prosecutions for manslaughter.
  472
  Mr. Nicholls
  The nature of the offence is the main criterion used to decide whether a case should be passed to the Crown prosecution service or not. The character of the defendent may also be relevant. The Crown prosecution service decides whether or not a charge of manslaughter is appropriate.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stretford, 15 May,Official Report, column 402, whether the Health and Safety Executive will consider initiating comparative research into accident or incident rates on (a) civil engineering and (b) construction projects within Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no plans to do so at present.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish assessments made by his Department of the additional contribution to be made by employers in 1990–91 towards the cost of youth training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government do not publish yearly forecasts of the additional contributions, both in money and in kind, to be made by employers to new youth training. These contributions are expected to exceed those of previous years, reflecting the growing recognition of employers that it is in their interests to contribute to training and the greater benefits to employers of the new youth training arrangements.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department accepts youth training trainees as unemployed for funding purposes under the European social fund.

  Mr. Eggar
  In accordance with International Labour Organisation recommendations, young people on YT are considered to be part of the work force in employment and
  473
  are therefore not deemed to be unemployed. I have no plans to adopt a different definition for the purpose of the European social fund.

  Trans-national Training
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the policy of West Germany in dealing with trans-national training projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is currently seeking information from European social fund applicants on all likely trans-national training projects, including those linked with West Germany. Once we have replies we will approach the other member states concerned with those projects to establish their policy towards them.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what applications his Department has received from the Trident training initiative for European social fund funding towards the cost of trans-national projects.

  Mr. Eggar
  According to my Department's records, no applications have been received for ESF funding from the Trident training intitiative up to the year ending 1989. The project applications for 1990 have yet to be submitted.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Eggar
  No document falls due for selection and transfer to the Public Record Office until it is at least 30 years old. A document's suitability for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period. The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested and to do so would inevitably incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with the Act, the Employment Department group is obliged to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general criteria under which the Employment Department group may retain documents over 30 years old are set out in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.

  Work-related Further Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the spending on work-related further education in 1990 prices for 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total expenditure on work-related further education by the Employment Department group Training Agency and its predecessors, the Training Commission and the Manpower Services Commission is as follows:
  474

  £ million

  1987–88

  128

  1988–89

  127

  1989–90

  112

  1990–91

  1108

  1 Projected·

  The figures shown are at constant 1989–90 prices and were calculated by use of the GDP deflator index.

  Unemployed People, Salisbury
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, of the 150 people claiming unemployment-related benefits at his Salisbury office, who are registered as not having a permanent or fixed address, how many have had(a) availability and (b) actively seeking work interviews.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to my hon. Friend.

  Technical and Vocational Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of spending per child on the technical and vocational education initiative extension in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  TVEI introduces long-term developments in schools to help prepare young people for the world of work. Spending is not necessarily geared to the number of students. It is therefore not appropriate to calculate unit costs.

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria he uses when deciding which documents to pass on to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Employment Department group complies with the guidelines issued by the Public Record Office on the selection of documents for permanent preservation. Decisions on which documents are transferred to the Public Record Office for this purpose are taken in consultation with Public Record Office inspecting officers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what systems he employs to classify, log and otherwise record each document generated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Employment Department group does not necessarily record each document raised. Instead, all documents are filed using widely accepted filing conventions in accordance with the relevant instructions.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the skill centres which are to be closed as training businesses and sold, giving(a) the valuation of and its assets sold, (b) the number of expressions of interest received and (c) the income likely to be received from successful purchasers.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The centres to be closed by my Department as training businesses are

  475
  Chelmsford, Chesterfield, Northampton, Portsmouth, Reading, Twickenham and Letchworth, excluding the gas safety training business purchased by Mr. J. James, which is due to be relocated.

  With the exception of Chesterfield, where the property will revert to the landlord, the Government's property interests in these centres will shortly be marketed. It would be prejudicial to the sale to give the valuation of the assets or to reveal the number of expressions of interest. The equipment at the closed centres is being sold by auction over the next few weeks and for commercial reasons it is not possible to reveal valuations at this stage.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the new pension arrangements of all civil servants involved in the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency and skill centres are compatible with the civil service pension scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The pension arrangements of the purchasers of the Skills Training Agency were all subject to an independent assessment by the Government Actuary's Department. The assessment concluded that the respective arrangements are broadly comparable to those of the principal civil service pension scheme and hence met the undertaking given by the then Secretary of State when the sale was announced.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if companies or individuals who had unsuccessfully bid for any or all of the skill centres were contacted about the further sale of Lambeth skills centre after 19 February.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: No. The only organisation interested in Lambeth at the final offer stage, other than one bidder interested in a very large network, was The Training Business.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total expenditure involved in the payment to Astra Training Services Ltd. for the acquisition of skill centres and other Skills Training Agency facilities.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The sale of the training businesses at 45 skill centres plus the Skills Training Agency head office, mobile training service, sales teams and colleges to Astra Training Services Limited involved a payment from the Government to Astra of some £10·7 million.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the skill centres and (b) the type of assets covered by the clawback procedures.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Clawback will apply to the freehold and long leasehold properties acquired by Astra Training Services Limited. These are skill centre premises at:

  Barking

  Basildon

  Bellshill

  Billingham

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Cheshire

  Dundee

  Durham

  476

  Enfield Annex

  Gloucester

  Gwent

  Hillington

  Hull

  Irvine

  Manchester

  Medway

  Milton Keynes

  North Staffordshire

  Norwich

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Preston

  Redruth

  Rochdale

  Sheffield

  Southampton

  Tyneside

  West Glamorgan

  West Sussex

  Wigan

  Wrexham

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Lakin Consortium put in bids, prior to 19 February, for any skill centres.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Yes. An indicative bid was received from the consortium headed by Mr. Lakin by the Government's sale advisers and it was placed on a shortlist of potential purchasers in mid-November 1989.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the total income likely to be received on completion of the sale of(a) skill centres as training businesses and (b) skill centres which will be closed and held as land and premises.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The sale of skill centres as training businesses is complete and total income received was £65,000. The Government's remaining property interests are about to be marketed and it would be prejudicial to the sale to give an estimate of proceeds.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if The Training Business Group Ltd. put in a bid, prior to 19 February, for any skill centres.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Yes. An indicative bid was received from The Training Business by the Government's sale advisers and they were placed on a shortlist of potential purchasers in mid-November 1989.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, for each of the successful bidders of the 51 skill centres the conditions covering(a) the length of time training must be carried on and (b) the quality of the training.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: In accepting the offers of successful bidders, I satisfied myself that they met the key objectives of the sale that as much as possible of STA's training business was transferred to the private sector, and that the training businesses sold had good prospects of future viability. I did not impose on any bidder specific operating conditions on the length of time training must be carried on, or the quality of training to be provided.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guarantees of employment training
  477
  income have been given to (a) Astra Training Services Ltd·, (b) the Lakin Consortium, (c) The Training Business Group Ltd. and (d) METEL for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: No guarantees of employment training income have been given to any purchaser of skill centres for the current or any subsequent year.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps were taken to ensure that the bid procedure, involved in the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency was fair and reasonable to all potential purchasers.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) announced on 13 March 1989 that he intended to sell the Skills Training Agency by private tender. In September 1989 advertisements were placed in the national press inviting potential bidders to contact Deloitte Corporate Finance for a copy of the information memorandum. The memorandum fully described the STA, the scale of its operation, the nature of its business, and the property that it occupied. Those interested could request information packs which give details of the individual skill centres and other units of sale. Further information was made available to shortlisted bidders, who were able to visit STA sites, talk to local managers, and make the inquiries they felt necessary to enable them to judge whether to proceed to make a final offer. All bids were evaluated against the same criteria, taking full account of the objectives for the sale. These objectives were placed in the Vote Office on 13 February 1990—[Official Report, 1 May 1990, column 42)· All evaluations and recommendations on bids were made by professional advisers.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the selection of advisers on the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency was based on competitive tendering.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Deloitte, Haskins and Sells were appointed on the basis of competitive tender to advise the Secretary of State on the feasibility of transferring the Skills Training Agency into the private sector. Deloittes were then appointed on the basis of a single tender to act as main sale advisers and to undertake some accountancy work.

  The surveyors, King and Co·, and solicitors, Field Fisher Waterhouse, advising on the sale were also appointed on the basis of competitive tenders.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps were taken to ensure that the general principles contained in paragraph 32·1·2 of chapter 32 of Her Majesty's Treasury's manual "Government Accounting on Disposal of Assets were observed in the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The Department took particular care to ensure that appropriate systems of control were instituted over the disposal of assets involved in the privatisation of the STA·
  478
  Staff involved in the sale of assets were not involved in valuations. Valuations of premises assets were made by external specialist advisers, appointed for the purpose. Valuations of equipment assets was subject to indexation using the "Business Monitor".

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the civil servants identified as surplus to requirements in note 11 of the Skills Training Agency accounts 1988–89 had left before 13 February.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The number of staff employed in the Skills Training Agency fell by some 500 between March 1989 and February 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on which assets the clawback procedure for the Skills Training Agency privatisation will apply.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Clawback has been applied to the freehold and long leasehold properties acquired by Astra Training Services Limited It will be applied as appropriate when the Government's remaining property interests in the STA are sold.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the reasons for the reduction of employers' income to the Skills Training Agency from March 1989 to February 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The employer income received by the Skills Training Agency between April 1989 and March 1990 was £12·4 million compared to £13·8 million in the previous year. The reduction reflected in part the ending of two short-term training schemes, funded by the construction industry training board and the engineering industry training board respectively, which were available in 1988–89 but not in 1989–90; and in part a substantial reduction in the size of the British Coal retraining scheme for redundant employees.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State far Employment if METEL, and The Training Business Group Ltd·, have benefited in any of the contractual agreements covering employment conditions or pension rights following the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The contractual agreements covering employment terms and conditions met the requirements of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. Pension and redundancy terms met requirements set by the Secretary of State. These regulations and requirements applied to all purchasers, including METEL and The Training Business, and were for the benefit of staff transferring to the private sector.

  Lambeth Skill Centre
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if any positive cash amounts were bid for the Lambeth skill centre.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: No, at the final offer stage no positive cash amounts were bid for the Lambeth skill centre.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the regulations with The Training Business Group Ltd·, and the transfer of Lambeth skill centre.
  479
  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The regulations governing the sale of the Lambeth skill centre to The Training Business Group Ltd. were the same as those which applied to all the STA sales. Staff terms and conditions were transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
  480
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions were made in respect of the numbers of people employed at the Lambeth skill centre after its sale.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The skill centre was sold as a going concern, and no specific provisions were made in respect of the number to be employed by The Training Business after completion of the sale.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Road Safety: Third Brake Light
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the interests of road safety, they will encourage the use of a third brake light in the rear windows of cars and taxis.
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. The Government have proposed amendments to the European standards for the installation of lights on cars. If these amendments were agreed, the additional stop lamp could be required by any member state choosing to do so. Unfortunately, it has not so far been possible to obtain agreement in the European Community to these amendments, as some other member states have opposed them. The subject is due to be discussed again, at our instigation, in Brussels on 13th July.
Baroness Macleod of BorveMy Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very encouraging reply. I wish the Government luck in the discussions. However, can he say, first, whether any of our well-known organisations are encouraging this step here? Secondly, is it correct that any individual citizen can put a brake light, as I have done, in the rear of his car?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall deal first with my noble friend's second question. The answer is, yes. However, as regards her first question, I am not sure which organisations she has in mind, but I can tell her that the British School of Motoring has fitted a third brake light to the whole of its fleet of Metros. The school has found that such action has resulted in an 18 per cent. reduction in rear-end collisions. The House can draw its own conclusions from that information.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in New York an experiment was carried out whereby half the cabs were fitted with an additional high rear light while the others were not? Is he further aware that the accident rate for the ones fitted with the extra light at the rear was very much lower than that for those cabs which were not so equipped?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information. I can tell the House that the United States and Canada require the additional brake light, while the United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland and the other Scandinavian countries allow it; but all the other EC states prohibit its installation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that we all accept the fact that this is a safety measure. However, can the Minister say whether any attention has been paid to the fact that many of these lights appear—at least, to me—to be far too intense and that they can be rather disturbing to some people? Moreover, although I am taking the matter a little further than the issue of rear-end collisions, can he say whether anything has transpired from the experiment with road marking to keep vehicles a decent distance apart? I believe that there is an experimental stretch of road which is being used for this purpose. I appreciate the fact that this is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but it is aimed at the same basic effort to stop rear-end collisions.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a most interesting question. However, as he said, it goes slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, I shall write to him on the matter.
Last year, my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara said that to avoid dazzle we were proposing that in future stop lamps fitted in the rear windscreens of new cars should be half of the intensity of standard stop lamps. I can now tell the House that the regulations were duly made last year to that effect, so that in future such lights will not be dazzling.

Eastern Europe: Aid
2.40 p.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to help Eastern Europe.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Barbazon of Tara): My Lords, we are helping Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic bilaterally through the Know How Fund. This will be extended to other countries once they are fully committed to reform. We also contribute to multilateral aid, including the European Community's structural aid and European Investment Bank lending for Poland and Hungary, food and humanitarian help for Poland and Romania, debt relief, the stabilisation fund for Poland and the new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. It should be appreciated that this country took a lead in this idea which, I understand, is being followed by many other European countries. However, can he tell the House what other resources are being devoted to this fund?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. We certainly took a lead so far as concerns Poland; indeed, we were the first in the field with the Know How Fund. We started with individual country pledges—for example, £50 million for Poland and £25 million for Hungary. However, now that the programme has been extended to include other

1887
countries, separate country pledges are less relevant and could restrict room for manoeuvre in responding to the needs of individual countries.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Dublin summit set up a study by the European Commission, involving the IMF, the World Bank and other organisations which he mentioned in his initial reply and in consultation with the Soviet Union, to study or to ascertain how best to assist that country in creating economic stability in that crucial part of the world. Does the Minister agree that the current discussions in Moscow make it clear beyond doubt that that study could be of historic importance? Further, can the Minister tell the House when that study is likely to be completed and to what extent Her Majesty's Government are committed to comply with any of its conclusions, provided that they are reasonable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is certainly right in that it was agreed at the Dublin summit that this problem required close examination before we decided on the remedies—hence the Council's decision to ask the Commission to initiate a study involving experts from the international financial institutions. As he said, this is certainly of great importance. However, I am not quite sure about its timing. I know that the Commission has been asked to carry out this task as quickly as possible, but I am not sure about the expected date of completion. Naturally, when the recommendations are available, we shall look closely at them with a view to participation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not difficult to justify giving aid to the Soviet Union while that country continues to maintain its present high level of defence expenditure which takes a substantial proportion of its national product?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that my well be the case. The Soviet Union is a potentially rich country which has been subject to over 70 years' mismanagement on a monumental scale. Economic help can make no sense until there is real economic reform to support.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that if we do not encourage moderate policies in the Soviet Union the arms to which the noble Lord referred may well soon be used?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are straying a little from the Question on the Order Paper. I am not sure whether Russia is included in the definition of Eastern Europe.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, are the Government pro-Gorbachev, against Gorbachev or neutral?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a different question, but we have supported Gorbachev throughout in the reforms that he has tried to make.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister be so good as to tell your Lordships whether any steps have been taken to monitor the Know How Fund aid that we are giving and the aid that goes through the European Community to discover which type of aid is most effective and what impact it has had on the economies of the countries in question?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Know How Fund is closely monitored. I could give your Lordships a list of all the projects so far allowed or in the pipeline. They are tailored mainly to what countries require and what they believe we are best placed to help them with. In respect of the European Community, the Commission is the body responsible for co-ordinating the assistance. I am sure that it will closely monitor the effects.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whereas the Government have shown a lead in giving aid to some Eastern European countires, it might make political sense to give aid to the Soviet Union so that we might, in years to come, enjoy good trade with it? As a result we would not have to give aid but could enjoy a sensible trading agreement with that country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that I have dealt with the question of the Soviet Union. I have nothing further to say at the moment.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is there not a danger that aid given to Eastern Europe may be at the expense of that given to the developing countries? For instance, are not some ODA staff already being transferred from third world duties to Eastern European duties? Will the Minister give a water-tight undertaking that those people will be replaced in their original posts by people of similar calibre and experience? Is it not clear that the ODA will need more money if it is to undertake the additional duties it is being given and if the aid programme to developing countries is to go unharmed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have already given an assurance that aid to Eastern Europe, of the type that I have described today, is in addition to our existing aid programmes for other parts of the world. I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord's question about where staff in the ODA come from or whether they will be returned to those duties subsequently.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is it not important that we should not give aid to any former communist countries until it is clear that communism and socialism have ceased to exist in those areas? Throwing good money after bad is no way to help them. That money will be needed when they have recovered in order to give them the proper help that we wish them to have.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our aid and that of the Commission are tied to a number of criteria: that there should be free and fair elections in a pluralistic democracy; respect for human rights; the rule of law; the introduction of a market

1889
economy; and freedom of the press. So far the countries that I outlined in my original Answer have met those criteria.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, bearing in mind the importance of moral gestures, as well as financial help, do the Government feel that the time has come to reconsider the return of General Sikorski's ashes to Poland? Will the Minister take up that question with the interested parties?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to reply to the noble Lord's quest ion at this moment. I have examined the issue in the past but I cannot remember the exact answer. I shall write to the noble Lord.

The Royal Shakespeare Company
2.50 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the future of the Royal Shakespeare Company.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government recognise the important role of the Royal Shakespeare Company as a national centre of excellence and one of the world's leading drama companies. The future role of the company must however be a matter for its board of management and the Arts Council as the main funding body.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Since the matter was last discussed in your Lordships' House, Royal Insurance has renewed its generous sponsorship yet again without producing any corresponding response from the Government. Is this because the Government still believe their subsidy to be sufficient? Or could it be because the Arts Council refuses to accept an earmarked grant?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the grant to individual arts bodies is determined by the Arts Council independently of, and usually prior to, any commercial sponsorship obtained. The Government have maintained their grant to the Arts Council and sponsorship is an additional resource, not a replacement, for this. However, we welcome very much the decision of Royal Insurance to renew and to increase its sponsorship of the RSC.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that were the Royal Shakespeare Company to put on Shakespeare properly, it would attract large audiences, particularly from the schools? It would then perhaps be able to manage without a subsidy altogether.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is a matter for the board of management of the Royal Shakespeare Company.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that—uncharacteristically—the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is talking nonsense? Does she further agree that separation she draws between state and government support and commercial sponsorship—both of which are welcome—has always been, and will remain, important?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, since the Government came to power the Arts Council's grant has risen by nearly one-third in real terms. This year it has risen by 12·5 per cent.; over the next three years it will increase by 22 per cent. Economic factors will always mean that there are lean periods for arts companies, as for business in general. The fact that major arts organisations know three years in advance the expected level of their Arts Council grant means that arts companies can plan better to deal with their problems.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, makes a sound point? Is she further aware that I have been a regular attender at Stratford-upon-Avon every year for many years? Some young producers achieve productions so unconventional that they literally become a send-up of the work. The basic attraction of Shakespeare's wonderful plays is completely spoiled.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the arts are booming as never before. Annual attendances at subsidised performances in England have increased from over 7 million in 1984–85 to over 9 million now. They are expected to rise to over 10 million next year.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, every time a Question is asked on the arts, we are all pleased to recognise the Government's great support and recognition of whichever theatre or museum is mentioned. Nevertheless, did the Minister not say that there were lean periods for arts companies? Is it right that arts companies should go through continuous lean periods and be underfunded all the time? That is the case here. It has been pointed out not only by the Priestly and Cork reports but also by the recent Wilding report. Are the Government prepared to do something about it before arts companies start to lose all the business sponsorship that has been gained?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Arts Council grant is above the rate of inflation. Funding of the RSC is a matter for the Arts Council. This financial year, the council has given the RSC an extra 11 per cent., taking its grant to over £6 million. Every organisation must operate within the resources available to it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, should not the Government give the Arts Council more money so that it has the opportunity to give bigger subsidies?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have just said, the Arts Council has been given more money by the Government. If the noble Baroness reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see that I gave that answer to a previous question.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of our distinguished actors started life in the repertory theatre? Throughout this country the large number of provincial repertory theatres are the nursery of the acting profession. Those theatres are just as worthy of support as the Royal Shakespeare Company. In view of its fame, the company is quite capable of standing on its feet.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree that repertory is the best cradle for actors of the future. The quality of British arts is the best in the world and the capital city has an enormous variety. However, I am not just talking about London. The re-emergence of the great regional cities as centres of artistic excellence has been a splendid success over recent years. Birmingham, for example, is becoming the second city for the arts.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, following upon what the noble Baroness said, the value of the RSC to tourism has been conservatively estimated at about £25 million per year—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister say how often officials at the OAL meet their counterparts at the Department of Employment which is responsible for tourism in order to assess that income and to assist the RSC to increase it? To put it another way, why starve this goose which lays such golden eggs?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, any meetings would be a matter for the board of management—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Baroness Trumpington: I am not reading—and the Arts Council itself.

Countryside Proposals: Progress
2.57 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they now have the information on the expected staffing and costs of the joint committee and country councils which are planned to come into being if the Environmental Protection Bill is enacted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, work on the staffing, structure and organisation of the three new councils and the joint committee is continuing, as I explained to the noble Baroness in my Written Answer on 14th June. However, it is not yet complete and so no definitive costs are yet available.
Baroness David: My Lords, I cannot really thank the Minister for that Answer because it is not satisfactory. He told me in the Written Answer that
1892
work was being undertaken by the Government and the existing agencies on the staffing, structure and organisation of the new councils and the joint committee. Can he say whether the result of that work will be available before we go into Committee on Part VII of the Bill on Wednesday?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that I shall have to give the noble Baroness what she will see as a second unsatisfactory answer. Work is proceeding, but I cannot give a guarantee that the result will be ready by Wednesday.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it the Government's expectation that the new councils will be ready to start work on 1st April 1991? If the answer is yes, what steps are being taken to acquire and to finance the extra staff that will be needed? Is the Minister aware that the Worldwide Fund for Nature has calculated that in Scotland alone a further £10 million will be required this year to make the extra provision for staffing in April 1991?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall answer the last part of the noble Baroness's question first. I am well aware of that figure. However, I must remind your Lordships that the figure assumes a more than doubling of the number of staff required which we consider over optimistic, to say the least. In answer to the first part of the noble Baroness's question, the Government have already allowed an extra £1·4 million this year towards the cost of the changes.
Lord Moran: My Lords, is it the case that a report by the Nature Conservancy Council and outside consultants has estimated that the re-organisation will require an extra 400 permanent posts in order to deliver the same amount of nature conservation work as is available now? Is the Minister further aware that if statutory obligations are to be fulfilled an extra 600 posts will be needed? Will he consider placing this report, if it exists, in the Library of the House?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government have a responsibility to the taxpayer. However, we will take into account all the information that is placed in front of us. In the carrying out of their responsibilities, the Government are aware that there will be an increase in costs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister now acknowledge that that series of unsatisfactory answers has blown a gaping hole in the amendments which he has put down for the next day of the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill? Those amendments were available in print only this morning. How can the Government propose a joint committee when they do not have the faintest idea what the staffing costs will be?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is far from the truth. The Government committed £1.4 million this year in preparation for the changes that will take place. I said in an entirely satisfactory reply that the Government are aware that costs will increase. The changes are to be carried out because we wish to get

1893
the job done better. We would not have achieved that if we had not at the same time increased the true level of expenditure by 160 per cent. since the introduction of the 1981 Act.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if the staffing of the joint committee proves to be the problem that noble Lords opposite suggest, are the Government open to the possibility of returning to their original proposals, which were that the chairmen for England, Scotland and Wales should simply liaise in a non-statutory way as and when required, as other organisations in the United Kingdom do so satisfactorily?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at the moment we are hoping to proceed as planned.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Treasury has agreed to any sum? Is he aware that we do not wish to be told after a certain length of time that resources will not be adequate because the Treasury will not agree to them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is rather hard to get the Treasury to agree to a figure before we have established what the figure is.

Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 23,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 24 and 25,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 26 to 38,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 39 and 40.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Social Security Bill
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Social Security Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are
1894
affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Attendance allowance for the terminally ill]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("a") to ("and") in line 5 and insert ("severe progressive and incurable disease and his life expectancy is short;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subject was discussed both in Committee and on Report. This probing amendment is a final attempt to clarify the meaning of the definitions in the clause and the intention of the Government in respect of the eligibility for attendance allowance of the terminally ill. I do not propose to go over all the ground again as we have had some full discussions on this difficult and sensitive matter. However, I wish to repeat the welcome on all sides of the House for the principle behind the Government's decision to extend attendance allowance to the terminally ill.
On Report at col. 36 on 11th June the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that if the measure did not work well enough, the Government would amend the legislation, and that the Government would monitor the situation to see how the provision worked out in practice. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain just how the monitoring system will work. Will there be some kind of review of the decisions taken by the attendance allowance boards and, if so, who will conduct the review? Will there be guidelines or guidance for the attendance allowance boards?
Finally, has the proposed claim form which the claimant's doctor will have to complete yet been drafted? The wording of the form is important because of the sensitive nature of the subject matter. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, suggested on Report that we might be able to see the form in draft. As I have already said, the wording on the form will obviously be crucial. Will it be possible to see the form in draft? I emphasise that this amendment is very much a probing amendment. It is intended to tie up loose ends and obtain final clarification on these points. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of this new subsection. I am also grateful to him for seeing me beforehand to tell me that this amendment was merely probing. I shall deal first with the point that the noble Lord raised as regards seeing the form in draft. I am afraid that that is not possible because we have sent it to the printers, but as soon as it comes back I shall allow him to have a look at it. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on this matter as he asked for reassurances on certain points and on the monitoring of the provision. I can make available to the noble

1895
Lord a copy of the letter that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
We shall continue to monitor the position carefully and we shall keep information on the number of successful claims and on the number of those that are disallowed. We shall also keep figures on the types of diseases involved and on the ages of claimants, but most importantly we shall keep a careful eye on the time that is taken to process claims. Speed is of the essence in this matter. If the claims are not processed quickly, the whole point of the concession that this new section introduces is lost. In the light of the information that we shall gather, we shall always consider any need for changing the arrangements. However, that would require primary legislation. I hope those assurances are welcome. Once again I thank the noble Lord for the welcome he has expressed on many occasions for the spirit of the new subsection.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for those remarks. I presume that if the format has gone to the printers it cannot be in draft form. I presume that the department has ordered the supply of documents that it requires. However, I am still grateful to the Minister. This is a topic that we have discussed all the way through the Bill. The various clarifications that we have received at each stage of the Bill have been helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("The homeless: entitlement to benefits
.In Schedule 1A, Part I, of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after paragraph 4, there shall be inserted the following—
"5. A person who has experienced a period of homelessness lasting for 7 days or more, shall be automatically entitled, except that in these circumstances entitlement would be for 3 months following the last day of homelessness.
5A. For the purposes of the above paragraph homelessness is defined as having no accommodation or having accommodation in a nightshelter, or other similar emergency short-stay hostel.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a final attempt to get the Government to see sense as regards providing what has been termed a breathing space for homeless 16 to 17 year-olds. If accepted, the amendment would provide those homeless young people with the automatic entitlement to income support for three months to give them a chance to find a hostel place, to return home or to find somewhere to live.
We know that the Government have finally recognised this problem, at least in part, as they recently announced initiatives to deal with it. However, there is still a large gap in the necessary provision. It has long been recognised that the social security system places barriers in the way of young people who are trying to find accommodation. As I have said, the difficulties have been acknowledged in part by the Government and obviously we welcome their decision to provide the money for much needed
1896
permanent "move-on" accommodation in London as well as a sum of money to pay for deposits on private accommodation.
However, many 16 and 17 year-olds will be unable to take up this accommodation as they are not automatically eligible for income support to cover their essential living expenses. Experience has shown that young people moving into permanent accommodation can therefore fall into rent arrears and lose their homes. A breathing space for these youngsters is essential if they are to obtain a YTS place or a job. We are advised by Shelter that 40 per cent. of the young homeless become homeless after leaving care. They certainly have no home to return to. Granting these young people income support for three months will encourage those people who can provide accommodation to do so. It will save the cost of providing emergency accommodation as recently proposed by the Government. It will also help to cure what many people and the organizations concerned with this problem feel is one of the fundamental injustices in the system of income support. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the situation has changed slightly since we debated the amendment in Report. Since then we have had the Statement of 22nd June from the Minister's honourable friend Mr. Spicer on the problem of homelessness which takes us a little further forward. By way of a Written Answer the Minister's honourable friend said:
"The Government are determined that there should be no excuse for sleeping-out on the streets. Emergency accommodation will be made available. Sleeping rough is unacceptable. It is unhealthy and often dangerous. We must see an end to the concentrations of people sleeping out in city centres".
The word "end" was possibly optimistic. If the Minister's honourable friend accomplishes that he will achieve something that has not been achieved in recorded history.
With that single qualification I agree with what the Minister's honourable friend has said. I sympathise with it and want to help him to achieve his objective. The amendment, therefore, is brought back in that spirit because it will help to achieve the objectives that the Minister's honourable friend has set himself.
Mr. Spicer's initiative is essentially concerned with providing short-stay hostel places. That creates a first rung of the ladder. It pulls one's head above the water. However, it is not only one's head that one needs to pull above the water, particularly if the water is cold. One needs not only to get emergency accommodation in a hostel, because after that one needs to find permanent accommodation and training or regular employment.
The last time we discussed the issue I quoted the case of someone who every time she was discharged from a short-stay hostel lost the entitlement to income support and therefore could not put herself forward to a landlord or landlady and find a place to live and therefore could not obtain employment. I must remind the Government Front Bench that in the private rented sector landlords and landladies are not providing a social service. They are in business. There is no reason why they should accommodate people unless they expect to make a profit from doing

1897
so. Therefore, we believe that unless one provides a young person in that situation with income for a short period which makes him or her an acceptable tenant in the private rented sector there is no way out of the trap.
I am sure that my noble kinsman will again repeat the arguments about the YTS guarantee. He did so in a letter to me of 21st June and in a further letter of 24th June which, owing to delays which are by no means my noble kinsman's fault, I have only just begun to digest. In his letter of June 21st my noble kinsman said that the guarantee of an offer of a suitable YTS place applies to all 16 and 17 year-olds who want one. As a reply to a file of 70 cases in which that had not happened I find that statement a little surprising. My noble kinsman told me on 28th June that the Government have no hard evidence of cases where a YTS guarantee has not been met. I find it necessary to ask my noble kinsman what type of evidence he would regard as hard and how hard he would have to fall over it before he accepted it.
I should like to thank the Minister for his replies on two other points in his letter of 21st June. He pointed out that there is income support entitlement for 16 and 17 year-olds who are disabled, temporarily sick or caring for parents. However, I should be very grateful if he would undertake to convey that information once again in the form of guidance to benefit officers because it seems that by no means all of them are aware of it. There are a considerable number of cases where it has been brought to our attention that that has not been happening.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Government are correct that the YTS guarantee exists, it does not deal with the problem of accommodation. It does not deal with cases like the YTS photographic trainee whose firm suddenly went bankrupt. It does not deal with cases like those of people waiting to join the Army. My noble kinsman tells me that he is not aware of any such cases. I forwarded him details of two recently. I know that I have sent him a great pile of papers, but he will find when he looks at those papers that those cases are among them. They are all examples of ways in which, unless teenagers are guaranteed an income during the period when they try to enter training or employment, they cannot get out of the hole.
Even with the best will in the world YTS training cannot be made available instantly. It has to be suitable. I should like to confirm what my noble friend Lady Seear said in Committee. This is meant to be industrial training and therefore it is meant to be be suited to the skills and aptitudes of the person concerned. That is why it is supposed to be useful to employers, who play a significant part in the scheme. There is a real clash of meaning in the YTS between the industrial training element, which must be in the employers' interests, and the social service element, which must be available to everybody regardless of their suitability. It may be that there are some people who are unwilling to take on the slog of YTS training. My noble friends would regret that, but my noble friends would regard starvation as a disproportionate penalty. I am happy to support the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is a rather unusual amendment, both in form and in substance. It takes the unusual form of using a provision in a statute to amend regulations. That is obviously an inconvenient procedure, particularly for those who will have to administer its provisions, in as much as there will be no indication in the regulations as at present printed that the statute has amended them. Nor is there anything in the statute to indicate the exact terms of the regulations which it amends. Therefore it is an inconvenient practice, but no doubt a permissible one.
The amendment goes too far. I shall leave the argument about the YTS to my noble friend the Minister because he has all the facts available to him, although I have little doubt that the assurances that he gave to the House at an earlier stage that the YTS provisions would cope with this type of situation can be repeated. That is up to him. What I dislike very much about the amendment is the use of the words "shall be automatically entitled" to income support for three months. That means that whatever the merits of the case, however much the homelessness may have been unnecessarily self-inflicted, the person concerned will be entitled to income support for three months because the provision states that it will be given automatically. That seems to me to be going too far and to be asking for the system to be abused.
Lord Henley: I thank my noble friend for speaking on the amendment and stressing the inconvenience of the form in which noble Lords are trying to achieve their ends.
On previous occasions I have outlined in some detail the Government's position regarding 16 and 17 year-olds. To recap, the Government believe that their policy towards 16 and 17 year-olds is the correct one and in the best interests of the young people themselves. The guarantee of an offer of a suitable YT place applies to 16 and 17 year-olds who want one. There is, therefore, no need for any young person to be without money. First, there are sufficient YT places throughout the country. There were some 160,000 vacancies nationally at the end of March 1990. I repeat the guarantee that I gave to my noble kinsman on previous occasions.
In passing perhaps I may touch briefly on two points that he raised. First, he mentioned the NACAB report which he quite rightly sent to me. I can give him the assurance that we shall discuss it. Officials in my department and the Department of Employment discussed that report with NACAB. But I ought to make one thing clear. The noble Earl says that we need evidence and that that report provides it. The names of individuals are not given and I do not object to that, but it is not clear from the report at what date those cases arose, whether before or after March.
The noble Earl will know that in March—I shall come to this point later—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced certain changes. I think therefore that it is highly relevant as to whether the cases highlighted in the NACAB report were pre-March or post-March.

1899
The second point that I should like to make is this. My noble kinsman asked for new guidance for the benefit offices as they were not doing what I had said that they ought to do. Again, perhaps he would like to come back to me with specific cases. I shall look into the matter. If the benefit offices are not performing in the manner in which they ought to be performing, the noble Earl is quite right to bring it to my attention.
As I said, there are sufficient YT places. Secondly, I should stress that income support remains payable to vulnerable groups such as the disabled and lone parents. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who said that 40 per cent. of homeless 16 and 17 year-olds are children leaving care, the noble Lord knows that income support is available to 16 and 17 year-olds during the child benefit extension period when they have to live away from the parental home—for example, to those who are leaving care.
Thirdly, I ought to mention—again noble Lords will know this—that there is a discretionary safety net which enables income support to be paid in cases of unavoidable severe hardship.
These rules are delicately balanced to offer financial help to vulnerable youngsters without providing the incentive to leave home. If accepted, this amendment is likely to encourage some young people to sleep rough rather than look for accommodation. That would inevitably delay their entry into youth training or a job, and that cannot be to their advantage. Moreover, it might encourage some young people falsely to represent themselves as homeless in order to get benefit.
We recognise that some youngsters who are homeless or who have experienced homelessness need special consideration in the provision of a YT place. In March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced measures to ease access to YT which especially help the homeless. These include links between hostels accommodating homeless young people, social services departments, voluntary organisations and suitable training providers. They include a leaflet for distribution to voluntary organisations working with young people, describing YT and how to get young people into it and include the establishment of guarantee liasion officers to act as a focal point for dealing with the few cases of difficulty in getting a YT place.
The Government are seriously concerned about the young homeless. That is why they announced a balanced package of measures on 22nd June directed at helping single homeless people. It includes £15 million for immediate shelter, move-on accommodation and a rent deposit fund. Other parts of the package specifically targeted at young people include a £200,000 grant to Children's Society towards a short stay annexe to its London refuge. Measures directed at preventing young people becoming homeless also from a vital part of the package.
I cannot support this amendment because it does not seem to me to be in the best interests of the disadvantaged young people involved. The existing
1900
benefit provision, the improvements to the YT operation and the special programme to help single homeless people which I have described ensure that help is available for those who are vulnerable, especially the homeless. Consequently, no young person need be without an income.
But the Government have listened very carefully to the points made by noble Lords on the income support rules for all 16 and 17 year-olds, including the homeless, during the passage of the Bill through this House. The Government are also mindful of the representations made in another place and by various interested organisations. From the largely anecdotal evidence laid before us we have not been persuaded of the desirability of any major changes to existing rules. But we nevertheless recognise the need to have before us quantitive data on how well the rules are working in practice. I am therefore pleased to announce the Government's intention to commission independent research into the operation of benefit and YTS provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds. An announcement on the detail of the research will be made shortly.
I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he made an extremely interesting statement at the end about research being undertaken into the operation of both the social security provisions and the YTS. Will he comment on a point which my noble friend quoted me as having made before about getting the right fit in the YTS? If the training is to be taken seriously, it has to be training appropriate to the person who is being trained. That is a very important point from the employers' point of view as well as that of the youngsters.
No employer wants to have some unsuitable person pushed on to him under the training scheme because he has been told that he has to do it. Will that research go into some detail as to how well the YTS is fitting youngsters for the training that they undertake? Otherwise, it is a waste of money and time on everyone's part—the Government, the youngsters and the employers.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give the noble Baroness quite the assurance that she wants. I said that there will be research into the operation of both benefit and YTS, and I stress the YTS provisions. I hope that that will go far enough to satisfy the noble Baroness. I said that she would have to wait a while for the announcement of the detail of the research. At the moment all I can say is that there will be research into both benefit and YTS provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds. I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to leave the matter at that.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he say whether he agrees with the statement by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that some homelessness is necessarily self-inflicted? I think that those were the words he used. If he agrees with that statement,

1901
would he like to say what proportion of homelessness is caused in that way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the answer is quite obvious. It must be that some homelessness is self-inflicted. The noble Lord simply cannot deny that. If he expects me, having just announced that there will be research into this matter, to speculate on what percentage might by any definition be self-inflicted, he is obviously more naive than I thought. I cannot speculate before research has been commissioned. I can make the categoric statement that some surely must be self-inflicted.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to keep preventing my noble kinsman from sitting down, but may I draw his attention to the fact that the cases to which I referred of people denied benefit because they were caring for sick parents or were ill are in the file which I sent to him on 11th June? Cases arising since March are being prepared and will be sent to him shortly.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that statement. I repeat that officials in my department and the Department of Employment will be discussing that report with NACAB. I ought to say however that it was not clear to us when we received that report whether the cases were pre-March or post-March. The question of whether they are pre-March or post-March is very important because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced various changes in March.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there are occasions when Ministers come to the Dispatch Box when we wonder whether they are living in the same world as the rest of us, especially when we hear of self-inflicted homelessness and encouraging youngsters to sleep rough. That may well be the case in a tiny minority of cases. However, I am not a lawyer, but I am told that hard cases make very bad law.
With regard to the survey, we have been down this road before. Those of us who have been active in the disability world remember the saga of the OPCS survey which was set up and which prevented any movement on legislation to help the disabled for some three, four or five years. When legislation finally emerged, only about 800,000 out of 6·5 million disabled people were helped. If the Government are setting up a survey, it is almost certainly an excuse for inaction.
One point that I should make is that no change in the overall government policy is required by this amendment. In 1989 the Government agreed income support entitlement to residents in night shelters. This new clause is simply an extension of that entitlement. It takes in other forms of temporary accommodation such as hostels and hotels for young people who have experienced a week of homelessness.
It is clear that we are not able to change the mind of the Government on this matter. All the organisations concerned with this problem have advised us of the seriousness of the situation. I think
1902
that the best thing to do is to ask the opinion of the House.
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brightman, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mais, L.

Mar, C.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Shannon, E.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grimond, L.

Shepherd, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kearton, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

De Freyne, L.

Allerton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

Dudley, B.

Annaly, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Arran, E.

Effingham, E.

Auckland, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Beloff, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belstead, L.

Elton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Erroll, E.

Blatch, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Blyth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Borthwick, L.

Flather, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Gainford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Goold, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Havers, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Henley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cox, B.

Hives, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Home of the Hirsel, L.

1903

Hood, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hooper, B.

Porritt, L.

Howe, E.

Quinton, L.

Ironside, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Reay, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Rodney, L.

Long, V.

Romney, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lyell, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Manchester, D.

Seebohm, L.

Manton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Mountevans, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Teviot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Nelson, E.

Ullswater, V.

Norrie, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Peel, E.

Wise, L.

Pender, L.

Wolfson, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Income Support: persons under 18
.In regulation 13A of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, for paragraphs (2)(b) and (3) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

"(b) for the period for which that paragraph applies or, if the date on which he attains the age of 18 falls within that period, for so much thereof as falls before that date".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, once again I come back to a modest, limited amendment about 16 and 17 year-olds living away from home. The amendment would enable them to claim income support until such time as they found a suitable youth training place or job. That would given them a little more help and a little more time. Young people must be allowed to make the occasional choice if they are to succeed in what they are going to do. Having a little more money means that it is much easier to find somewhere to live. A deposit may be asked for. If they have somewhere to live they are much more likely to obtain a job. Employers are very reluctant to take on people with no address.
Shelter has done some research. It has found that when the young have no home they have difficulty in finding a job or a suitable youth training place even though there are some youth training places in the country.
We all know about the child benefit extension, which lasts for a limited period of 12 or 16 weeks depending on the time of year, and the bridging loan, which is £15 a week and can be claimed only for eight weeks out of a 52-week period. We know about the severe hardship payments. However, of 21,218 applications between September 1988 and January 1990 over 7,000 (one-third) were refused. Those provisions are simply not adequate.
In his reply this time I hope that the Minister will not say that the Government do not wish to encourage young people to leave home but that if this extra support were available it would be an incentive to leave. I think that that is arrant nonsense. A large percentage of the homeless are those who have been in care. Centrepoint, for instance, says that 40 per cent. of the young who go to them for help have been in care. Then there are those who leave home because of having suffered abuse.
Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is unable to be present and sends her apologies. Like me, she was extremely disappointed, indeed angered, by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on Report. When we saw Mrs. Shephard we thought that we were getting somewhere because she made sympathetic noises. I hope that our persistence shows the seriousness with which we view the problem. There is a real problem, as is made abundantly clear by evidence from the citizens advice bureaux, Shelter and other voluntary bodies.
In his reply on Report the Minister made reference to monitoring. He said:
"We have continuously monitored the effect of the changes. We have done this through the collection of information from local DSS offices and from the severe hardship unit".—[Official Report, 11/6/90; col. 135.]
However, Shelter and other voluntary bodies carried out research "on the job", meeting the homeless at Centrepoint and other hostels where people had gone hoping to find accommodation.
I hope that the Government will be more charitable and caring and show greater understanding. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, Mr. Spicer has shown some anxiety about the homeless. I was also interested to hear about the proposed research review. However, the research will take time. We want the help now to meet what is a real problem. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendment is an attempt to use primary legislation to amend secondary legislation. Whatever its merits, and I do not yet commit myself to a view, I suggest to the noble Baroness that such a course would cause great confusion on the statute book, in our book of collected statutory instruments and to the users of statutes. The point has been raised several times in recent months both during the course of this Bill and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I hope that the Government will always take the view that this is not the way to amend secondary legislation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and also the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who made a similar point in relation to a previous amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, knows that I listened with interest when he made the point previously. We have spoken privately about the subject. The proposal is worth thought. The difficulty is that we are led to believe that Parliament is a sovereign body. Parliament may enact what it sees fit to enact. The question is: if Parliament is not to act in this way,

1905
what method should it adopt? I am not clear of the answer.
Where a statutory instrument is in place but we believe that it has been proved by evidence to be unsatisfactory, there must be a parliamentary procedure by which we can bring about a change. The only procedure that I can see is an attempt by primary legislation. I admit that that causes difficulties. It appears that the moral to be learnt is that the Government are doing too much by regulation and too little by primary legislation. If we cannot bring about change this way, how can we do so?
I hope that in reply my noble kinsman will not repeat information about the crude total number of YTS places as he did in respect of the previous amendment. I must again stress what was said by my noble friend Lady Seear. The scheme is supposed to be a training scheme. It is no use offering a place in construction to someone who intends to train to be a garage mechanic. It is no use offering a place which is in the wrong area because the scheme does not provide enough money to enter the rented market miles away from home.
In his letter to me dated 28th June my noble kinsman dismissed entirely the geographical difficulties of providing YTS places in the Western Isles. They are a little more formidable than he suggested. I do not see that we can meet the scheme's double purpose of providing a safety net to keep people alive and of providing industrial training. There must be a safety net under the training aspect because there are plenty of problems which do not fit the scheme. For instance, the problem of people being available for a short period has been drawn to my attention. There are people who have completed a YTS course thereby proving their willingness to do so, and who have found employment, only for the firm to fold. As they were three months short of their 18th birthday they were ineligible for income support Such a situation does not deserve starvation.
Again in his letter dated 28th June, my noble kinsman stated:
"They could put in some useful time on YT in preparation for whatever is to come".
I am not clear what that phrase means. It does not sound like a training scheme. I hope that my noble kinsman will explain it to me. I do not see that the Government can continue to rely on the scheme's double purpose. They should think about how far-reaching are the implications of disentitling a group of British subjects to benefit. The right to benefit, the right to vote and the duty to pay taxes are interlocked. To be deprived of any one of those is to become a second-class citizen. I hope that the House views the possibility with considerable misgiving.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment. However, I wish first to say a few words to the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton. I had the honour to serve on the committee considering
1906
the preparation of legislation when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was chairman. I sympathise with what the noble Earl said. If one cannot amend subordinate legislation in this way, how can one amend it? If it cannot be amended, Parliament is not supreme. That is an unanswerable argument. I believe that the way to make such a course acceptable is to include words to the effect that the regulations shall be amended accordingly. If those simple words are included, the regulations will be entirely intelligible to anyone interested in the subject and there will be no confusion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wish to add a few words because I have not yet taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, appeared to put forward a reasonable case but surely there is a good alternative procedure. If noble Lords desire to alter the provisions of a regulation they can table a Motion in the ordinary way requesting the Government to amend the regulation. If noble Lords can persuade the House to carry that Motion most governments will be inclined to respond. If governments do not respond they will get themselves into considerable difficulties and trouble. Surely that is the practical way of proceeding. However, the course proposed in this and a previous amendment, whereby one has a statute in the list of statutes appearing to amend a regulation in the book of regulations, will cause unnecessary confusion. There appears to be a simple way round the problem.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to my noble friend I wish to remind him that the report of the committee of which he was such a valuable member—
Baroness David: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in order?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that I am in order. I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, had given way to me. I wish to make only a short point which is relevant to what was said by him and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In that report we pointed out that primary legislation was intended to last a long time; it should not be permanent but quasi-permanent, whereas matters likely to change from time to time should be covered by regulations. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, they can be amended.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not intend to follow my noble friend—
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I was on my feet and was interrupted by two noble Lords. I was very happy to give way but I have not finished my speech.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that his proposal, although ingenious, is not legislation. If one House of Parliament cannot propose in primary legislation to amend subordinate legislation under a previous Act, then that Parliament is not sovereign and you are taking away from the sovereignty of Parliament. That is intrinsically undesirable.

1907
According to my recollection, the Government are very happy to subscribe to this device. Parliamentary counsel use this form of legislation. That being so, I should have thought that both noble Lords would be happy that this amendment should be drafted in this way. That is all I wish to say on that.
On the substance of the amendment, like other noble Lords, I very much welcome the announcement made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, of the proposed inquiry. However, in the interim what it is to be done for those unfortunate people? It is important that in the meantime this amendment should be accepted. I wish that the previous amendment had been accepted for the same reason.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not intend to follow my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, or my noble kinsman in this very fascinating discussion on primary and secondary legislation. I object to this amendment but not on those grounds and therefore I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I refuse to be drawn into discussion on that matter.
When speaking to this amendment I was going to make the announcement which I made on the previous amendment apropos research. It now seems that this amendment has followed the previous amendment. Nevertheless, I repeat that we shall commission research to look into the matter of 16 and 17 year-olds and YTS. That research will be ready by early 1991. I should stress that the Government will obviously respond to that. Changes which noble Lords will remember in July, November and March emphasise our willingness to respond to research.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two other points made by noble Lords during the debate. My noble kinsman Lord Russell asked about the suitability of individual YTS places and quoted from my letter. The Training Agency will do its best to match the young person with the sort of training that is wanted. However, I believe that at the end of the day—and my noble kinsman queried part of my letter—a second choice is better than nothing at all. It is better that a young person should be doing some form of youth training rather than remain on benefit.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord totally misses the point. A little longer to find the right course at a small cost is better than taking the wrong course, failing on it and being a nuisance for the rest of your life.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that. The Training Agency will do its best. There will not always be a course which is absolutely ideal for the young person in question. However, I stick to what I say. At the end of the day the second choice will always be better than nothing at all and will be better than that young person receiving income support.
My noble kinsman raised the question of offshore islands and stressed their remoteness. I quite
1908
understand that. However, I should stress that where training needs cannot be met locally, arrangements can be made for the young person to take a suitable course in a different area. If he then has to live away from home, the reasonable costs of accommodation and related travel can be met.
The Government have always recognised that some youngsters need special consideration as regards the provision of a YT place. That is why those considered vulnerable and who need time and help to secure a YT place can claim income support during the period of child benefit extension. That does not mean that we should give up on those youngsters who need help. Indeed, we cannot afford to do so.
Their problems can be accommodated in a number of ways. The first is through YTS which aims to provide quality training tailored to the needs of the individual. That includes those youngsters with special training needs such as those who lack motivation or who have disabilities. Secondly, initial training offers in-depth assessment and remedial help for young people who would otherwise have difficulty in being accepted or coping with YT. That is intended to bring youngsters with particular problems—for example, the homeless and those with severe emotional or behavioural problems—to a point at which they are ready for mainstream YT.
This amendment could discourage some young people who most need help from taking full advantage of the YT guarantee which I have repeated again this afternoon and provide them with an all too easy route back to benefit dependence. I do not feel that that is in the best interests of the young person.
I end by repeating the announcement which I made on the earlier amendment. There will be research. If necessary the Government will respond to that when it becomes available early in 1991. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment because I cannot add anything more to what I said on the previous amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the research when speaking to this and the previous amendment. Can he tell the House who will be conducting it? We remember the promised independent review of disability benefits. That was in fact an internal review. It turned into a White Paper which was produced without any consultation with the voluntary organisations and was succeeded by a Bill published three days after the White Paper.
Lord Henley: My Lords, had the noble Lord listened to me on the previous amendment he would have heard me say that we intend to commission independent research into the operation of benefit and YTS provisions. It will be independent. I cannot say who is to conduct it because we have not yet decided who to commission. I am sure that as soon as that is decided, the noble Lord will be told about it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Government consider the case for commissioning academics rather than consultants?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can respond to that, knowing that my noble kinsman comes from the academic fraternity. However, I shall certainly pass on the comment to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. When he comes to commission the research I am sure that he will consider who is the most appropriate person. If the noble Earl wishes to put forward any names from the academic community I am sure that they will be taken into account.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for rebutting the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, he did not. He got it wrong.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, put forward a very good case.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that the Government's objections to these amendments was not as to their form. Therefore, we can ignore that.
I am sorry that the Government's position has not shifted at all. Although of course the research is very welcome, nevertheless it will be nine months at the very earliest before anything can be done. For young people that is a long time. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell said, we need this safety net. We feel very strongly about this and I shall ask the opinion of the House.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blackstone, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brightman, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hughes, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hunt, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kearton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Leatherland, L.

David, B

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Longford, E.

Fitt, L.

Mais, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mar, C.

Galpern, L.

Mishcon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Grey, E.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Halsbury, E.

Nathan, L.

1910

Nicol, B.

Shackelton, L.

Northfield, L.

Shepherd, L.

Oram, L.

Stallard, L.

Peston, L.

Stedman, B.

Phillips, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Richard, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rochester, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

White, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Seear, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Serota, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kimball, L.

Allerton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Annaly, L.

Layton, L.

Arran, E.

Liverpool, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Barber, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Manchester, D.

Blyth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Manton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountevans, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cox, B.

Peel, E.

Craigton, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Davidson, V.[Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

De Freyne, L.

Porritt, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Quinton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Effingham, E.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Erroll, E.

Romney, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Flather, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goold, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Havers, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hood, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Howe, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wolfson, L.

Joseph, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.7 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of carers who remain in the home
.—(1) Section 22 of the Social Security Act 1986 (Calculation of Income Related Benefits) shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in subsection (2) below.
(2) Where a person has been admitted permanently to accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, nursing home or hospital, the Secretary of State shall prescribe that in calculating the claimant's capital, any dwelling shall be disregarded if it is occupied in whole or in part by a person—

(a) whose sole or main place of residence is that dwelling; and

(b) who is aged 30 or over, was engaged for at least 35 hours a week in caring for the claimant in at least 80 of the 104 weeks immediately preceding the claimant's admission to such accommodation, nursing home or hospital, and was not employed to provide such care by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment.".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, in one form or another, must now be familiar to your Lordships. It arises not only in this Bill, but also in other Bills. The case is as strong as ever. The purpose of the amendment is to protect people whose relatives have been taken into a care institution either temporarily or permanently. The effect is that the family home cannot be sold in order to meet the costs of caring.
We accept that there are limitations upon the way in which the provisions can be applied, but it is essential that the people listed in the amendment are able to maintain their homes. Many of these people have given up their own homes in order to move in and look after the person who has been moved into the institution, temporarily or permanently. For them to lose their home is quite unreasonable.
Encouraging community care, with all the uncertainties of finance, will increasingly mean asking family and friends to take a major part in that caring. They will at least need some security that they will keep a roof over their heads after they have been caring for a while. It is to safeguard that position that we tabled the amendment. The amount of money that the Government would save by rejecting the amendment can only be negligible; the amount of good that it would do for the persons involved and the encouragement it would give to individual carers at home is very great indeed. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I was pleased to add my name to this amendment. As the Minister is aware, it is a problem that we have discussed at various stages of this Bill and indeed of the National Health Service Bill. As I have said in the past and will repeat, successive governments of all colours have shamelessly exploited carers over the years. They save the public purse a great deal of money, and this is the sort of amendment the Government should be prepared to accept.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this is familiar territory and I am not sure that
1912
I can add much to what I said at earlier stages. Having said that, when we last debated this matter on Report the amendment was in a somewhat different form. I said on that occasion that I had some sympathy with the objectives but that the amendment was drawn rather too widely. I am pleased to see that this new amendment is rather more prescriptive and I congratulate the noble Baroness on her inventiveness.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I did not draft it, someone else did.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness was really responsible and she drafted the amendment rather well.
Clearly the amendment is more prescriptive and has slightly more to offer, but I fear that it is still drawn rather more widely than I would wish and that it would prove very difficult to operate with any degree of certainty. I shall refer to those difficulties in a moment. Meanwhile, I should remind the House how important it is to bear in mind the needs of the people living in residential accommodation who will have to pay for the care that they will continue to receive.
The property which is the subject of this amendment is the claimant's former home and as such the realisation of its value would do much to provide the claimant with a level of comfort he or she has perhaps not previously enjoyed. I mention this not to minimise the valuable role played by many carers but to remind the House that we must take full account of the needs of both the carer and the claimant.
I return to the difficulties that I have with this new amendment. If accepted it would mean that the claimant would not reap any benefits from the property if, for example, it was occupied by a former carer in their thirties even if they, or in some instances their partner, were in full-time work. Furthermore, as currently drafted, the amendment would enable former carers who have lived elsewhere to move into the claimant's home some time after they have entered residential care accommodation or hospital and so take advantage of the proposed disregard.
Adjudicating authorities would also have problems trying to operate this amendment. I am sure that it is right that the carer should have been engaged for a substantial number of hours each week—a minimum of 35 hours is the sort of figure I have in mind—and of course it would be in line with the qualifying conditions for invalid care allowance. However, I do not know how the adjudicating authorities could hope to prove or disprove that this 35-hour condition had been satisfied unless invalid care allowance was previously in payment and that care had been given for at least 80 out of the previous 104 weeks. I think that we have to be mindful that these events would have passed and that the adjudicating authority would be looking at them in retrospect—all in all, a rather difficult task.
The Government are very conscious of the debt they owe to carers and while I am unable to accept

1913
the amendment, even in its revised form, I repeat the assurance that I gave to the House only a matter of days ago. We are monitoring the position of carers with particular emphasis on those who would have to find other accommodation. If there are cases in which particular hardship might arise and which are not eased by the existing disregards—and we have not come across a case so far—we will certainly consider whether anything further needs to be done in regulations. Should that prove necessary, it would be a relatively straightforward matter to introduce a change by way of secondary legislation. No amendment would be needed to primary legislation.
In the meantime I am sure the House will be pleased to know that the existing regulations already fully disregard property which is occupied by a former carer who is either the claimant's partner or a relative of the family aged 60 or over or who is incapacitated. Many carers are assisted by these rules. The noble Baroness will probably be disappointed with my response but I hope she will be able to accept my reassurances and withdraw the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am grateful for very small mercies and I thank the Minister for his more sympathetic approach. However, before the Bill goes back to another place perhaps he will consider one other possible option. He referred to the difficulty of administering the amendment. Will he consider people who are already drawing invalid care allowance? That will restrict the proposal to a small number of people but at least it would be a clearly identifiable number.
I do not expect the noble Lord to bargain with me across the Floor of the House, but perhaps he can say that the Government will at least think about that possibility. Having said that, and as we have lost the previous two Divisions by nearly 50 votes, I do not intend to press the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment perhaps I may add that this morning we considered the question of carers who are in receipt of invalid care allowance. We endeavoured to ascertain the number of carers who are partners. In the short time available we were not able to obtain that information; it might have provided at least one interesting statistic. Certainly we shall continue to monitor the situation and, as I said, if we find that there is a problem—we do not have much evidence to show that there is—changes can be made by means of secondary legislation. I shall now sit down and allow the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I shall endeavour to obtain some evidence for the noble Lord. I hope that if I produce it he will continue thinking and not wait for the results of a monitoring process, which can go on for a long time. If my evidence prompts his thoughts into action it will be extremely well received in many quarters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 58, line 43, after ("applies") insert ("it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to refer to an adjudication officer for review any such decision as is referred to in subsection (7)(b) above where, in his opinion, such a review would result in the payment of benefit, or of an increased amount of benefit, to any person and".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical but very important amendment regarding the severe disablement allowance. The need for it arises from a recent decision by the social security commissioners concerning the interpretation of the 1987 income support regulations. The specific regulation concerned dealt with the qualifying conditions for receiving severe disablement allowance. Among those conditions was a requirement that the disabled person should not have anyone over the age of 18 living with him but certain people were not to be counted for this purpose.
One of the groups that does not count is anyone with whom the claimant "jointly occupies" the premises. The Department of Social Security interpreted this regulation to mean only anyone who is a co-owner or liable to share responsibility with the claimant or the claimant's partner for outgoings. The commissioner ruled that "jointly occupies" in the regulation should not be given the technical interpretation adopted by the department but an ordinary straightforward meaning and should apply if the persons in question who normally reside together jointly occupy the premises in the sense of equality of access and use as distinct from a situation where restrictions are imposed in relation to those matters.
The regulations were amended on 9th October 1989 as a result of the commissioners' decision, and this decision relates only to the pre-October regulations. Claimants requesting a review of the original award of income support should be entitled to benefit backdated for a year from the date of the request for a review. They should therefore be entitled to arrears of benefit for at least a year from the date of the request for a review until October 1989.
To ensure that all those severely disabled people currently in receipt of income support should be paid the benefit owed to them, the amendment seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all those claimants potentially affected have their cases referred to an adjudication officer and their entitlement to benefit reviewed. In view of the Government's increased emphasis on care in the community it is important that severely disabled people who are living in the community rather than going into hospital or institutionalised care should get all the help available, either through the carer receiving invalid care allowance or, for those managing on income support, through severe disability premium.
This is an important decision by the commissioners and it seems only just that those who have lost out as a result of the department's misinterpretation of the regulations should be compensated. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches I am happy to support this amendment. It involves the status of judicial decisions and therefore the entitlement to review for other claimants which may arise as a consequence of a judicial decision.
The weakness of the Government's decision is shown in the wording of the 1986 regulations. They seem to be under the impression that judicial decisions actually change the law. I believe that Regulation 72 contains the words:
"erroneous by virtue of a decision of a court of law".
However, it is not like that. The courts do not make law; they declare it. Therefore, when the courts of law declare something to be the law that means it always was the law and the department was mistaken in supposing otherwise. That is why an entitlement operating retrospectively may arise as a result of a judicial decision. I hope that is something to which the Government will continue to pay attention. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall deal with the case that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to towards the end of my speech. However, first I shall deal with the generality of the amendment, as I understand it, because it was tabled on Friday and is quite new.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to identify all cases benefiting from a reinterpretation of the law so that they could be reviewed and payment made. Such a provision would mean that a search for past cases would have to be carried out in all instances without account being taken of the administrative and financial difficulties involved in doing so. I pause here to point out to my noble kinsman that he is quite right in saying that the courts declare the law rather than reinterpret it. However, we are dealing with the practicalities of life here. That is why I wish to set out the impracticalities surrounding the Secretary of State trawling back through every single possible case to find each person who might have benefited from what I referred to as reinterpretation of the law but which my noble kinsman referred to as a mere declaration of the law.
Documentary evidence of past claims is limited because of the routine destruction of documents. The search through past records is expensive both in terms of manpower—with costs in some cases reaching several million pounds—and in terms of the inevitable diversion of administrative resources from dealing with current claimants.
Perhaps I may state the legal position of the Secretary of State. At the moment he is under no statutory duty to conduct a search for past cases in which claims or questions have been decided by adjudication officers on a particular understanding of the law which by a subsequent decision of a commissioner or the courts is shown to have been wrong. In all cases the person concerned has a legitimate expectation that a search, within the bounds of reasonableness, will be made by the Secretary of State. He is wholly entitled to give full account to all the administrative and financial
1916
difficulties which may arise if a trawl were to be conducted.
In view of the possibility of a disaffected claimant seeking remedy via judicial review, the Secretary of State needs to be able to demonstrate that he has considered the need for a search or trawl, that all the relevant facts have been carefully weighed and that the reasoning behind a decision not to trawl is on record.
In effect, we do what we can to identify cases affected by a reinterpretation of the law, but I hope noble Lords will agree that there is a limit to how far we can reasonably be expected to go. If, for example, a reinterpretation of the law gives a small amount of benefit to a bare handful of claimants and they could only be identified by way of a complete trawl of all past and present case papers at an administrative cost of many million of pounds, I am sure that most noble Lords will agree that what this amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to do is indeed far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. We do, after all, need to be mindful that administration should be economical, and that what we do imposes no more than a reasonable burden upon the taxpayer who eventually foots the bill for that administration.
I now refer briefly to the case of Mr. Crompton to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. In effect the noble Lord asked what impact paragraph 7 has on that case and on people like him. It depends on whether the chief adjudication officer decides to lodge an appeal and the outcome of that appeal if there is one. If the decision stands, Mr. Crompton will be paid any benefit award in full accord with the decision of the commissioner and the social security appeal tribunal to whom the appeal has been remitted, whether or not this provision is introduced.
With this provision on the statute book any claimants analogous to Mr. Crompton would have their benefit entitlement restricted to 17th May, the date when the regulation was reinterpreted by the commissioner. Since the relevant regulation was changed last October, the effect of this paragraph in the Bill would be that no one else in Mr. Crompton's position would benefit from the particular decision of the commissioner unless they themselves have also appealed to the commissioner.
I hope that explains to the noble Lord the point that he was trying to make. I also hope that what I have said about the generality of the new insertion in Schedule 5 will persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I understand the problem to which the Minister has referred. It is extraordinary that the department misinterpreted the regulations. This young man, Simon Crompton, suffers from Down's Syndrome. He needs constant care and supervision from his parents who are themselves retired. They do not receive any extra help for looking after him. It is extraordinary that the department interpreted the regulations in the way that it did. This is an obvious case for assistance.
We are advised that the trawl to which the Minister referred can be achieved quite simply. The Secretary of State could identify all income support claimants

1917
who are currently in receipt of an attendance allowance and who are not in receipt of a severe disability premium. The local offices could then be instructed to review the entitlement of those claimants. Obviously, if the duty was there, a great deal of work would be undertaken by the voluntary organisations who would bring the cases to the attention of the adjudication officers.
I do not intend to divide the House on this matter. A point of principle is involved here and it is very worrying indeed. We have discussed this matter a number of times and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has drawn attention to it as well. It seems that bureaucratic efficiency and comfort is to be preferred to helping these very deserving cases. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 59, line 34, after ("treated") insert ("under section 51B(1) of the Social Security Act 1986").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 9. I apologise to the House for bringing these two amendments forward at this stage and for not having flagged them beforehand. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman, Lord Russell, on Friday giving them warning of what I proposed to do. These amendments are intended merely to clarify improve the drafting so as to remove any potential ambiguity in paragraph 7 as it stands at present. I can assure the House that the amendments do not alter in any way the purpose of this provision which I have already explained to the House on earlier occasions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 60, line 32, after ("treated") insert ("under section 51B(1) of the Social Security Act 1986").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. We have had a number of valuable and constructive debates on the measures in the Bill and across the field of social security legislation. I should like to pay a particular tribute to the contribution made to the proceedings by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, my noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Last but not least, I should also like to thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for doing so much and for giving me such valuable support throughout the passage of the Bill.
Many other noble Lords and noble Baronesses have spoken on both sides of the House. It would take too long to mention all their names, but I thank them all for their contributions to this debate and for the help that they have been. As our debates have been so thorough it would not be right to detain the House overlong with my remarks about the Bill at this late, stage. I have said before that the measure before us is not a major piece of social security
1918
legislation but that its scope is nevertheless substantial. It contains both necessary fine tuning and some substantial measures to implement new policy. I ought just to reiterate some of the main themes.
We have spent some while in debate on benefits for disabled people. The Bill provides for part of the comprehensive strategy for disability benefits set out in The Way Ahead. The first set of these changes has already been introduced. These include increases in the income support and housing benefit disability and disabled child's premium; an increase in the earnings limit for invalid care allowance and an increase in the therapeutic earnings limit for invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance. The measures in this Bill are a further step. Further measures—the new disability allowance and disability employment credit—will be introduced by April 1992. Once all of this strategy is implemented we will be giving extra help to some 850,000 people—with a net effect of increasing benefit expenditure by some £300 million. Of course this is on top of an expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled and on their carers which stands currently at nearly £10 billion per year and has almost doubled in real terms since 1979. This underlines most effectively the real strength of our commitment to disabled people.
The Bill also includes important measures to give greater protection for the members of occupational pension schemes—building on the changes which we have made in this area in recent years which have changed so substantially the climate of thinking about private pensions and about provision for retirement. The introduction of a pensions ombudsman will provide, for the first time, a realistic alternative to the High Court for individuals who have a dispute with their scheme. The Government have also tackled—in what I believe to be a fair and balanced way—the related issues of the indexation of pensions and the use of scheme surpluses. I hope that the House will now recognise how much these measures will assist the occupational pensioner both by enabling him to receive the necessary help and advice and by ensuring that the value of his pension is protected.
The Bill also includes a package of measures to improve the arrangements for the collection of maintenance for lone parents. They will mean that DSS can seek maintenance based on a realistic assessment of the costs of the lone parent's responsibility as child carer. The transfer of rights for children under a DSS order will save lone parents the trouble of going to court to get a private maintenance order. DSS action to enforce a private maintenance order in arrears for lone parents on benefit will mean quick action without the need for lone parents to approach the courts. These measures will all provide worthwhile help while we press on with our wide-ranging review of the maintenance system as a whole.
We have spent much time in debate both as regards this Bill and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill on the important subject of

1919
the benefits paid to the residents of residential care and nursing homes. We are taking what I believe to be a series of sensible and measured steps to assist in dealing with what I think we all recognise is an extremely difficult problem. I have referred on a number of occasions to the commitment made by my right honourable friend to undertake a rapid investigation into the costs of residential care and nursing homes. I am sure the House will be interested to know that we have just commissioned the management consultants Price, Waterhouse to undertake this for us.
We have also spent some time debating the social fund. I would emphasise again that the amendments in the Bill do not represent any change in policy. They simply reaffirm the basic principle of the scheme—endorsed by Parliament during the passage of the 1986 Act—that the fund should operate flexibly but within a sound financial framework. The Bill also includes a large number of other more minor provisions—and most of them have also been debated by your Lordships at some length. The Bill as a whole is part of our measured and deliberate strategy to prepare the social security system to meet the needs of the new decade. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with all that he has just said. Indeed, to compare this Bill with a curate's egg would be extremely unfair to curates. There are aspects of the Bill that obviously we welcome. For example, the inclusion of a provision for attendance allowance for the terminally ill. At a number of stages of the Bill we have congratulated the Government on fulfilling the obligation they gave in last year's debates on the Social Security Bill. The House will remember that it agreed to amendments on students and benefits and on the clause concerning the recovery of damages from benefit payments. However, we could make very little progress on more fundamental issues such as administration of the social fund, benefits for 16 and 17 year-olds, and the plight of homeless families.
I have referred to the amendments that the House agreed concerning the right of students to claim social security benefits. Similar amendments were debated on the student loans Bill and it is to be hoped that the Government will not simply overturn those amendments without further and serious thought in the Commons. I can tell the Minister that the student community will be watching with great interest the way in which the Government respond to those amendments affecting students that have been agreed by this House.
The other set of student amendments that the House agreed dealt with entitlement to claim housing benefit and allowances for regional housing costs. Of particular importance is the fact that postgraduate students are not entitled to loans under the student loans scheme but are at the same time to be disqualified from claiming housing benefit. These changes to the Bill are significant because the other
1920
place has never had a proper chance to discuss the question of students being withdrawn from the benefits system. We hope that the Government will allow a full debate on these amendments when they are returned to the other place, and will not guillotine them as they did a number of important amendments concerning community care which were tabled to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
We have received a number of assurances from the Minister, which we certainly welcome. I am referring to those regarding attendance allowance and the terminally ill, which we have indeed discussed earlier today; the commitment, over time, to increase severe disablement allowance to the same rate as invalidity benefit; the link between youth training and automatic reinstatement of severe disablement allowance; and the assurances that were given regarding treatment of refugees and income support, when the Government said that they had some sympathy with the position that we outlined and would consider amending the rules on income support through regulations at a later date.
However, there are a number of areas where we were very disappointed. We made no improvement at all on a number of important and familiar issues such as the uprating of child benefit, which we tried in two different directions at Committee and Report stage; and the extension of mobility allowance for the severely mentally handicapped, an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and I and others pressed on the Government during our deliberations on last year's Bill and indeed this year's Bill without success. I hope that the Government will be able finally to agree the figures with us on the number of people who would be affected by this, so that we may hope that at some stage we could extend the mobility allowance and have some idea of the numbers that would be affected. Those of us who have been involved with this are quite confident about the numbers that we have produced. But we know that the department has not been able to agree with us.
The administration of the social fund, the benefit rights and levels of 16 and 17 year-olds and the under-25s, the homeless families placed in board-and-lodging accommodation, all have been completely untouched by the measures in this Bill. Of course we attempted to move an amendment to help the veterans of the nuclear tests in the Pacific, and that was rejected.
Despite discussions during the passage of this Bill and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill we have achieved no help at all for existing residents in residential care. We feel that they are still to be left in danger of eviction because of a shortfall in income support. The Minister will know that the situation regarding housing benefit remains a matter of some concern with the voluntary organisations, with this business of a "notional rent" to be applied to all claims in local authority areas.
However, we have done a lot of work on the Bill. I should certainly like to thank my noble friend Lady Turner for her great expertise on pensions, which relieved me of the need to deal with that section of

1921
the Bill. I know that she will say a word later about that. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their unfailing courtesy and good humour throughout the passage of the Bill.
We have also, as they will well know, been considering the National Health Service and Community Care Bill alongside this Bill. We have certainly seen a lot of each other in recent weeks, and in the early hours of the morning. We certainly disagreed—quite fundamentally on occasion—but we have never fallen out. The Bill leaves the House with some improvements, a substantial number of defects, and I fear with still large gaps in the provision of a proper, just and adequate system for social security. I feel that the only way to put that right would be the return of a Labour Government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is sometimes maintained that family quarrels are more bitter than others. I am deeply grateful to my noble kinsman for helping to ensure that that should not be so. I am grateful to him for his unfailing courtesy, his unfailing good humour and his care in dealing with points that have arisen and for keeping me on my toes by being, like his predecessor in the office, never more dangerous than when apparently on the ropes.
I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her good humour and for what seems to me to be an impressive gift for sensing the mood of the House and for teasing which on occasion has enlivened our proceedings a great deal. When I look back on the Bill, one of the things that I shall remember is the cushion of the noble Baroness. Speaking as one who happens to be about the right size for these Procrustean Benches, whenever in future I attack mindless bureaucratic uniformity, the cushion of the noble Baroness will come into my mind.
On the business of the Bill, I cannot speak quite so much in terms of agreement. The Bill has been with us for a long time. It had its Second Reading on 20th April. That is partly because, to my regret, this subject is sometimes treated as a Cinderella subject and has been given a lower priority than some apparently more exciting Bills. In so far as that length of time arises from the number of amendments that we have put down, I feel no need to make an apology. It is the duty of Opposition parties to notice what is amiss. At this stage, with the changes that came into effect in 1988 reaching a point where we can observe their effects, it is particularly the duty of Opposition parties to observe what they believe to be going wrong. If they did not draw that to the attention of the House, they would be failing in their duty.
I was a little sad to hear the words of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, when we discussed child benefit, to the effect that he regarded it as unfortunate to bring back an amendment with which another place the previous year had expressed disagreement. Parliaments normally bring back things which governments do not like and have done so for many centuries.
Perhaps I may take a quite trivial example. The Bill for the abbreviation of Michaelmas term, which
1922
reached the statute book in 1641, had been moved continuously for some 60 years before it reached the statute book. When my great-grandfather was elected MP for the City in 1847, he was elected alongside Baron Lionel de Rothschild, who, being Jewish by religion as well as by race, was denied the right to take his seat. As any good Liberal would, my great-grandfather put down a Jewish Disabilities Bill to put the situation right. It was defeated. My great-grandfather moved that Bill in 12 consecutive Sessions before it finally reached the statute book. In the light of some of the things said since the War Crimes Bill, I think that I am doubly entitled to testify to the pride that I have always taken in that story. I hope not to have to emulate my great-grandfather, but there are some subjects on which, if I need to, I shall.
The priority issue in the Bill for me has been the issue of teenagers. I shall not dwell further on the subject now save to raise one point about the drive that has gone on over the past week against young beggars. I accept that begging is not an efficient method of relief. It is not targeted. Some of the beggars may be fraudulent. The trouble is that one never knows. However, it has been the policy of Parliament, at least since 1601 and probably going back even further, that discouragement of begging had to go hand-in-hand with an insistence that relief was available from public funds because that created the title to discourage begging. I am not sure whether that is the situation at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked at Second Reading for Opposition spokesmen to state their priorities. My first priority is that we should not have anyone reduced to starvation. Teenagers and board and lodging for the homeless where there is measured malnutrition are cases that for me come within the priority category in saying that no one should starve.
My second priority category concerns what I have come to think of as the bottle-neck amendments. I refer to people who, because of the lack of a little extra help, are restricted from climbing out of benefit and getting back into employment, which is the objective that we should all wish to see. The amendments for deposits to be payable on the social fund and for a child care disregard on income support were the two priority amendments in that category. There were many others.
In the course of debate, we uncovered a real difference of philosophy. I am reminded of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel—to whom the House will want to wish a very happy birthday—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Russell:—reflecting on the difference between a half-full and a half-empty whisky bottle. Where I see a bottleneck, I see people being impeded from getting out. Where the Government see a bottleneck, they see ravening hordes craving for benefits, struggling to get in. The Government therefore try to make the bottleneck narrower and narrower: I try to make it wider and wider.
In the process, the Government are making the cost of the social security system a great deal larger

1923
than it needs to be. The issue of cost has come up many times. The irony is that I think I am perhaps more concerned about the cost of the system than the Government are. When my noble kinsman said at Second Reading that he made no apology to me for the cost of the system, I began to wonder whether I had at last avenged my great-grandfather's honour and stolen the Tory's clothes.
The main reason why the system is so expensive is that it supports too many people. I do not think that that is because they are addicts of benefit. I do not think that it is a form of nicotine. I believe that it is because the ways of escape are being made too difficult and small meannesses are having the effect of preventing people from taking employment or obtaining housing and forcing them into continuing dependence. The Government are therefore forcing themselves to spend more than they need. We cannot view with equanimity a figure of 17 per cent. of our population dependent on benefit. I cannot believe that in most cases that is because they wish to be.
The trouble here is the department's deep concern with fraud. No Liberal Democrat feels comfortable with fraud. We must stop it. The question is one of priorities. Speaking in the debate on the humble Address on 24th November 1988, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich pointed out that there were 3,335 officials dealing with social security fraud while we were short of reaching the establishment of 79 in the serious fraud squad. I question whether that is a cost-effective sense of priorities. I also question whether social security benefits are quite as attractive as the department's philosophy seems to suppose and whether it perhaps risks finding itself emulating the late Sir Alan Herbert's epitaph on an archbishop:
"My predecessors, fighting sin,
Did their best to bring men in,
But I was best, without a doubt,
At keeping the unworthy out.
So when I died, the Church was one,
And that was me".
There is one major area of victory here; namely, the amendments on students. I am delighted by our success on that. When another place considers those amendments, we would be unwise to allow it the impression that, when amendments come back to us reversed, we never insist on them. We saw in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill that that idea encourages the other place to think that it can reverse any of our amendments with impunity. It risks reducing us to the status of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We may ask the Government to think again, but, if that were to become accepted, we have no power with which to encourage them to do so. To attempt to do things with no power is an unpolitical method of proceeding.
Where that approach might lead us is indicated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science in an interview with my college student newspaper on 22nd June. He denied altogether that, on the subject of student benefits, the Social Security Advisory Committee had been critical of the Government. I was very surprised to
1924
hear that denial. The definition of the word "critical" in this matter is worthy of thought.
On the substance, it is most important that students should be supported above benefit level. The Minister's right honourable friend, Mr. Scott, admitted to me on 20th April that this is not at present the case. In his reply to me of 15th June, my noble kinsman stated that he did not like the charge but—noble Lords can read that reply carefully because my noble kinsman has deposited a copy of it in the Library—I do not think that he denied it.
In order to bring students up to benefit levels, we need another £400 in London; we need another £600 to £800 in areas of expensive housing in the South-East and in Edinburgh; and perhaps rather less in the North-West and in Sheffield. That is a considerable gap. The Department of Education and Science would be rather unwise to give up the entitlement because in future negotiations with the Treasury on levels of student support, it could be a very powerful hand to play. The department could always tell the Treasury, "If you do not give us the money, you will have to pay it to the Department of Health and Social Security instead; you won't save anything". In fact, the principle of a safety net would operate. Once again, that illustrates why I believe that to be a safety net from which no category of our citizens should legitimately be deprived.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I have a question to ask him. In recent years he has become one of the most impressive Members of this House. However, since he mentioned the name of his great-grandfather, who we all associate with parliamentary reform and services to the Jewish community, will he agree that he took a very hostile line towards Roman Catholics? Will he repudiate that?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that we have lived beyond no popery; I think that that is a bygone which we can allow to be bygone.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, all social security Bills are important because they matter a great deal to certain sections of the community which are in one way or another in need or in difficulty. They are equally important because our whole social security system requires constant supervision by the Minister, constant review by Parliament and changes to be made to deal with different situations; for example, the emergence of different needs, changes in the economy and changes in the national way of life. Therefore, this is a very important Bill. I hope that the fact that your Lordships have taken a good deal of time to deal with it—and rightly so in my view—will not deter the Government from introducing future legislation as it appears necessary.
I do not believe that you can operate our social security system without fairly constant new legislation. Its ramifications are so wide and affect so many people that only considerable vigilance can deal with the situation. Equally, it may involve very difficult decisions for the Government of the day because, whatever view you take on the economic situation, there is only a limited amount of money

1925
available. When you have a social security Bill, a decision must be taken to determine the needs that you must meet and you will meet, and the needs, however respectable and worthy, which are not entitled to be given the highest priority. That is a most difficult situation upon which you cannot possibly hope to have unanimity either in Parliament or in public opinion. However, it is a responsibility which falls fairly and squarely upon the Government of the day and, in particular, upon the Secretary of State.
I should like to refer specifically to two items in the Bill. The first is the very sensible appointment of a pensions ombudsman. I often wonder why we use the title "ombudsman". As the duty of the ombudsman is to nag, it may well be thought more appropriate to have an ombudswoman or, in modern terminology, an "ombudsperson".
Baroness Turner of Camden: Order!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thought that that suggestion would go down well with the noble Baroness! However, having said that, this is a good appointment. It is an excellent idea because there are many cases in which the social security system causes difficulty to individuals. It is most useful to have someone to whom individuals can go and ask for support in solving their problems.
The other part of the Bill which I especially applaud—and I am conscious of the fact that I am now repeating what I said on Second Reading—is in Clause 1. I refer to the provision of attendance allowance for the terminally ill. That is a real advance which noble Lords in all quarters of the House warmly applauded. I particularly admire the sensitive provision under which the application for the benefit can be made without the knowledge of the person concerned. I can think of many cases where this provision would have been useful. I can think of one such case in my own experience where that consideration was of crucial importance. In that particular case, to have allowed the patient to know what was happening would have had a very unhappy effect on her morale. It is a first-class provision on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the department are to be warmly congratulated.
Finally, I echo the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in approbation and approval of the way in which the Bill has been handled by my noble friends on the Front Bench. I refer to my noble friends Lord Henley and Lady Blatch. I have probably had as much experience of taking social security legislation through Parliament as anyone. I served for six-and-a-half-years as the Minister responsible in another place. I cannot recall at present how many Bills I took through. In any event, it was a substantial number. Therefore, I am in a position to appreciate and understand as well as any of your Lordships what a strain and what a difficult task it is. You are dealing with matters upon which people feel passionately, about which people feel that wrongs are perhaps being inflicted and where people feel strongly that there are hard cases which
1926
should be remedied and helped. It is an enormously difficult task.
I congratulate both my noble friends on the skill, the courtesy and the good temper with which they have conducted our proceedings. I am glad that my noble friend the Leader of the House is present in the Chamber. He should also know how much noble Lords on both sides of the House approve of the way in which this measure has been handled by the Ministers responsible. I should like very humbly to congratulate them and to say that the skill which they have shown in handling this difficult measure is, I am afraid, an indication that a sensible government will perhaps give them more and more employment in conducting legislation because they do it so well. However, whether my noble friends regard that as an agreeable prospect is another matter.
I am glad that the Bill has now reached its final stage, although it does not do what many Members of your Lordships' House would like to have seen done in certain respects. I fully understand what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. However, it marks an advance of a considerable nature. It will do much good to many people who need good doing to them. I very much hope that it will soon be on the statute book.
5 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I too express my thanks to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the way in which they have dealt with the often hostile amendments that we have put down on this side of the House. I shall not go into the Bill in detail, because my noble friend has already done so. He dealt with the clauses relating to disability, carers, the various social security benefits and so on.
I should like to make a few remarks about the pensions part of the Bill before it leaves the House. Most of the innovations in that part of the Bill are welcomed by this side of the House. Our complaint has been that the innovations do not go far enough. They followed closely the recommendations of the Occupational Pensions Board, of which I still have the honour to be a member. The net result will be that generally much greater protection is provided to members of occupational pension schemes. I do not however believe that we have seen the end of legislation in the pension field.
I am certain that in the not too distant future we shall have to return to the issue of state pension ages because that interlocks and interacts with occupational pension provision. Clearly, the Government will have to study that matter because of the decisions of the European Court, the Barber judgment, and so on. We shall have to consider equal state pension ages, and when the Government do so I hope that they will take full account of the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee, which have already been before the House.
There is then the question of the indexing of occupational pension schemes. Those provisions are to be welcomed. We, as your Lordships will be aware, wanted to see full retail prices indexing, but we

1927
regard indexation up to the 5 per cent. limit as an advance on what existed and something on which it will be possible to build. We should like to see all pension schemes treated in the same way, and indexing, and provisions for it, extended to personal private pensions and contracted-out money purchase schemes. We might be able to return to that issue at the end of the quinquennium, as not exactly promised, but possibly suggested, by the Minister.
Then we have the whole subject of takeovers and mergers. Again, we hope that the Bill's provisions will act as deterrents for predators, because there has been a great deal of concern in the past that large pension surpluses have been an attraction to predators in the takeover and merger field. The Bill's provisions provide some further protection for occupational pensioners and members of other schemes.
I welcome the ombudsman/ombudswoman. I believe that he is called ombudsman because the term is a Scandinavian one. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I do not believe that women have the monopoly of nagging. As your Lordships are aware, I should have preferred a tribunal because I believe that that would be the more appropriate mechanism in a situation which of course interlocks with employment. We already have tripartite industrial tribunals dealing successfully with employment. It seems to me, and to a majority of us on the OPB, that a tribunal system would have been preferable. However, the Government have not chosen to go down that route. They have chosen instead to have an ombudsman scheme. We wish it well, and we shall monitor it carefully to see that it does the job that the Government intend it to do.
Before I leave the Bill, there is one aspect of it which caused me a great deal of distress. I am sorry to have to raise it yet again. This morning I received a letter from the solicitors acting for Mr. McKernan, the elderly pensioner whose case I raised on Report as the subject of an amendment which, unfortunately, I lost. It will be recalled that that individual, aged 74, suffered from occupational deafness. The Court of Appeal decided that he was entitled to benefit which had been denied by the DSS; and yet now we have, tucked away in the schedule, a provision which retrospectively has the effect of robbing him and other people of benefit.
I gather from my honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw, whose constituent Mr. McKernan is, that there was no opportunity to debate that issue in the other place because of the guillotine procedure. That is even more unfortunate, because it means that that individual has been robbed of benefit, as have many others in a similar situation, without the other place having the opportunity to give the proposal democratic scrutiny. That is entirely regrettable. In any event, retrospective legislation is something which I understood that your Lordships' House had always set its face against. I very much regret that we were unable to do anything about that provision on Report.
1928
Having said that, it remains for me to repeat what my noble friend said: this is not the last time that we shall be looking at social security in the House. I hope that the Government will not feel disposed to use their automatic majority in the other place to undo the amendments approved in your Lordships' House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall respond briefly to some of the points which have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, likened the Bill to the famous curate's egg. He then went on to say that that would be unfair to curates. That was a strange remark. I looked carefully around at the right reverend Prelates because I did not think that curates could lay eggs.
Lord Carter: Only Ministers, my Lords.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall leave it at that. As I said, I shall deal with one or two of the points upon which I might be able to say something of use. Bearing in mind the time problems, it would be unwise of me to respond to all the points made. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, rightly asked when the decision would be made as to how housing benefit will be calculated. In the past, I assured the noble Lord that we should make a response fairly soon. I can now give him a more hopeful answer. We hope to respond by the end of the month. I hope that he will accept that that is more definite than when, in the past, it was stated that it would be soon.
The noble Lord and my noble kinsman mentioned the number of amendments carried in the House which relate to students' benefit entitlement. All I can say is we are considering carefully the implications of those amendments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will announce his intentions in due course. The noble Lord asked whether discussions in another place will be guillotined. That is of course entirely a matter for the other place. The noble Lord would not expect me to comment on that point now.
The noble Lord also remarked upon the Government's refusal to extend mobility allowance to all people who are not independently mobile. I remind the House that there has been a six-fold increase in the number of mobility allowance recipients since 1978–79. In April of this year we introduced arrangements extending payment of the mobility allowance to people who, as the noble Lord is aware, are both deaf and blind. From April 1992 it is intended to introduce a new disability allowance which will enable people who are not independently mobile also to qualify. We estimate that by 1993–94 some 150,000 people will qualify for the new, lower rate of help for mobility needs.
I appreciate my noble friend's remarks in welcoming the pensions ombudsman. I do not follow him by suggesting that there might be a pensions ombudswoman. My noble friend will have noticed the reaction to his remarks. I hope that, whether it is a pensions ombudsman or ombudswoman, the best person who can be found will be appointed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that she would prefer a tribunal to a pensions ombudsman.

1929
We debated that point in Committee, I hope that she looks forward to the pensions ombudsman system working well over the coming years and I am glad that she welcomes the Bill's pensions legislation. I accept that she would like many parts of it to go further. She particularly included the state pension age and suggested that we ought to aim towards its equalisation. As I have said in the past, the matter is complex and requires careful consideration. As the noble Baroness rightly mentioned, there is the European Court ruling on the Barber case. As she knows, that does not affect state pensions but we are considering the implications of the case. We have stressed that it is for schemes themselves to take legal advice on each scheme's circumstances.
go no further on state pensions other than what I have said on many occasions in the hope that at some point we shall be able to to the demands for equal state pensions. these matters are of great complexity: they important and not something on which we should rush into premature decisions.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he forgive me if I ask a question? He said, "We hope at some point". May we have something more definite? This has been going on a long time; we should like something a little more definite than "we hope". By 1993 some of these people will be dead.
Lord Henley: My Lords, no, I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Baroness any further. It is a complex matter and we cannot rush into premature decisions. I have stated that the Government accept that there is a case for equalisation. How we achieve that and how long it will take is complex. We must bear in mind that there are people in their 40s who have already made plans for retirement on the basis of a pension at whatever their retirement age. It is a complex problem that cannot be solved overnight.
My noble kinsman referred to the Bill as a "Cinderella" Bill. He implied that the Government's treatment of social security matters was like the treatment of Cinderella. I do not accept this. A great deal of time has been devoted to the Bill and an unprecedented level of resources is devoted by the Government to social security. My noble kinsman went on to state in a rather peculiar fashion that the Government should spend less on social security and that would be a sign of greater success. I cannot accept that point. If the noble Earl considers those on whom the money is spent, I believe that he will agree with me that it generally goes to those in need. The general thrust of all our measures is to that end. However, to say that by removing bottle-necks we shall reduce expenditure is a great over simplification. I suspect that, if my noble kinsman's party had been in government at some time over the past 70 or 80 years and had had some experience of administering a social security system, he might have realised that the matter is not as simple as such glib remarks suggest.
Perhaps I may end by emphasising again that the changes in this Bill represent only one chapter in our continuing development of the social security
1930
system. This year we intend to spend—and I make no apologies for repeating the figure which the noble Earl accused me of over emphasising—some £56 billion on social security. That is well over £1 billion per week, or £20 per week for every man, woman or child in the country. The total is over one-third higher in real terms than expenditure in 1979. Nevertheless, we plan to increase that total to £60 billion next year. The total represents 30 per cent. of all public expenditure. These are enormous sums. However, I should stress that the resources at our disposal—and this is something which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter stressed—are not infinite. My right honourable friend has a clear duty to ensure that the funds are used wisely and responsibly.
It is essential for the Government to have a responsible approach. I was always told that that should be the hallmark of Opposition as well. I have therefore taken the trouble to do a little arithmetic. The total cost of the additions that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have sought to make to the Bill during its passage through the House would amount to roughly £1.8 billion in the first full year, or a full penny on the basic rate of income tax. I believe that to offer a programme of that kind is both irresponsible and ill-considered. It is not a mark of either meanness or lack of care that the Government should reject the amendments. We stand by our record and our strategy and I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell the House whether the calculation he announced was made by officials in his department or by Conservative Central Office?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it was made by officials in my department.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Consumer Guarantees Bill
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ewart-Biggs).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [The Consumer Guarantee]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("guarantee") insert ("given in relation to a specified product,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. As noble Lords will recall, I spoke to it during the earlier Report stage. I therefore do not wish to take up the time of your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
Page 2, line 9, after ("of") insert ("additional").
Page 2, line 9, after "charge" insert ("other than a charge made in accordance with paragraph (g) or (h) below,").
Page 3, line 5, at end insert:
("(2) In this section, a specified product means a product which is specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations by virtue of this section except in relation to products which are ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.
(4) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and shall include power —

(a) to make different provision for different cases; and

(b) to make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.".

Page 3, line 5, at end insert:
("(2) Nothing in this section requires the guarantor to collect any product from, or return any product or replacement product to, any place outside the United Kingdom.
(3) Where the consumer who seeks to rely on a Consumer Guarantee is resident outside the United Kingdom, he may in his notice under section 1(j) above nominate an address in the United Kingdom from which the product in question is to be collected by the guarantor, and to which it or any replacement is to be returned.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Enforceability of guarantees]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("period") to end of line 20, and insert ("indicated, as if those terms constituted a contract between the guarantor and the consumer.").
Page 3, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) The proper law of such a contract shall be deemed to be that of part of the United Kingdom in which the product was first supplied to a consumer.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Choice of Consumer Guarantees
.—(1) Where a product is covered by two Consumer Guarantees, one given by the producer and the other by the supplier, a consumer may invoke only one of them, but he may choose which.
(2) A consumer who has invoked one Consumer Guarantee may not then invoke the other even where he releases the guarantor under the first Consumer Guarantee from discharging any obligation under that Guarantee.").
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Title and Consumer Guarantee
.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the title to a product shall not be affected by anything done to or with it pursuant to a Consumer Guarantee covering the product.
(2) Where, pursuant to a Consumer Guarantee, the guarantor replaced a product—

(a) the title to the replaced product shall vest in the guarantor when the consumer receives the replacement, and

(b) any person who immediately before that time had any title to the replaced product shall at that time have vested in him the corresponding title to the replacement product.

1932
(3) Where any title to a replacement product is substituted for title to the replaced product by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above, references to the replaced product in any insurance policy or other document shall be treated as including references to the replacement product.
(4) Nothing in this section requires a person who had agreed to buy or otherwise acquire the replaced product, to buy or acquire the replacement product instead.").
On Question, amendments agreed to,
Clause 4 [Power to make regulations]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("increase") and insert ("change").
Page 4, line 3, leave out from ("of') to ("the") in line 4.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Definitions]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 42, after ("1987") insert ("where that person is domiciled in the United Kingdom by virtue of any provision of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Acceptance of goods and opportunity to examine them]
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 24, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) Where the buyer deals as a customer or (in Scotland) the contract is a consumer contract, the buyer is not deemed to have accepted the goods for the purposes of subsection (4) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) above.").
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that on the previous occasion the noble Baroness moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 and 15 and 16, excluding Amendment No. 14. Has that been changed?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we considered Amendment No. 14 in Committee. The point at issue is whether the House agrees that there are circumstances where a consumer should lose his right to a refund under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 even before he has had a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods. The Minister responded to this at Committee stage. I am moving it once again because I cannot think of any good reason why a consumer should lose the right to a refund even before he has had a fair chance to see whether the product works satisfactorily. I beg to move.
Lord Denham: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 are already in the Bill. Amendment No. 8 was not moved. The noble Baroness moved Amendments Nos. 9 to the end en bloc. The Question that has been put is that Amendments Nos. 9 to 16 at the end of the Marshalled List be agreed to en bloc.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 9, line 25, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
("(2) Part I of this Act shall come into force on the day when regulations are made for the first time under section 1(4) above.

1933
(3) Part II of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.").
Page 9, line 36, leave out ("to Scotland but only Part I and this section apply").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments on a previous occasion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Environmental Protection Bill
5.20 p m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hesketh I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 314A:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment to procedure in connection with registrations and a authorisations
. In subsection (1) of section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (referred to in this Part as "the 1960 Act") (procedure in connection with registrations and authorisations), for the words "may afford to such local authorities or" there shall be substituted the words "to any local authority within whose area the keeping, use, disposal or accumulation takes place (or is expected to take place) or which is otherwise affected by such an activity, and may afford to".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 314A standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The purpose of this amendment is to insert a requirement into the 1960 Act for local authorities to be given the opportunity of a hearing as regards applications for the keeping or disposal of nuclear material and other such matters in their areas before the Secretary of State makes a decision.
At present under Section 11 of the Act the Secretary of State has discretion on whether to involve a local authority. The issues raised by the amendment have already been discussed on previous occasions. The Dudley case will be well known to the Minister. The problem encountered by Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council is paramount, stark, real and relevant. In summary, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council took the Secretary of State to court and won. The subject of the case was an incident where the Secretary of State had granted an application under Section 6 of the 1960 Act for a waste disposal plant to treat radioactive substances on a local industrial estate close to residential development.
The issue was pursued in the House of Commons by my honourable friend Ms. Joan Walley MP, who subsequently set out the issue in a letter to a Minister. A reply to that letter has now been received. The letter from Ms. Walley of 15th May pointed out that a revised authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste at the Peartree Lane site was issued after the
1934
court case, again without the council being afforded the opportunity of a hearing.
The particular concern in the Dudley case related to the authorisations under Section 6 of the Act, which covers disposal of radioactive waste or material. This amendment has been drafted so that a hearing would be required for a local authority in the following instances of consents under the 1960 Act. A hearing would be required for the registration of premises on which radioactive materials are kept; the registration of mobile radioactive apparatus; the disposal of radioactive waste; and the accumulation of radioactive waste with a view to subsequent disposal.
I move this amendment at this stage to test the principle of the involvement of local authorities in a decision as representatives of the local community on this sensitive matter. It would be helpful if the Government could give any indication of their attitude to Section 6 applications. This is a probing amendment. I do not intend to press it. We may or may not come back to the issue on Report.
The Minister may well say that he has taken steps to secure that local authorities are notified of applications that have been granted in the various kinds of cases that are covered by the 1960 Act. However, that is like slamming the stable door after the horse has bolted. Notification after the event does not meet the basic objection encountered in the Dudley case, which is that if the local council has no voice, the local community is effectively deprived of any involvement in such applications.
We contend that the state of the law is highly unsatisfactory. In the Dudley case the Secretary of State conceded in court that he had not directed his mind to the question of whether the council should be afforded a hearing before he made his decision. The interpretation by the Department of the Environment of the Act had in practice been to consider whether to give a local authority a hearing only in the case where the applicant himself had chosen to take up the opportunity of a hearing. In the Dudley case the applicant did not seek a hearing and the first that Dudley heard of the authorisation was when it received a copy of it after it had been granted.
This is a serious matter. I remind the Committee that the incident at Dudley could happen anywhere else. I am indebted to Dudley Metropolitan Borough's legal officer for giving me the basic facts. The matter arose on 9th November 1988 when, without any prior consultation or discussion, the council received from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution a copy of an authorisation issued to Waste Incineration Services Limited permitting the disposal of solid and liquid organic radioactive waste at the Peartree Lane site. The accompanying letter stated:
"low level solid, liquid or gaseous waste within the limits set out in the authorization might be safely discharged to the environment … no special measures need be taken by the Council.
That is highly contentious. Certainly the right of a local authority at least to state its case before such an application is granted is, at the very least, eminently sensible.
When that letter was received, the council replied and objected to the authorisation on three grounds. First, it objected to the lack of consultation and, secondly, to the fact that the disposal plant was not yet fully commissioned. Thirdly, the council stated that the waste disposal licence had not yet been agreed or finalised. In reply to that letter, the inspectorate responded to those objections by stating that it remained satisfied that the authorisation should take effect.
When the appropriate committee of the local authority met, it became extremely concerned at the authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste without any prior consultation or discussion with the council. I hope no one in the Committee thinks the council was being alarmist, unduly pessimistic or unduly anxious in wanting some discussion. It was not asking for the right to make a decision but merely for some discussion on the authorisation that affected the borough. The legal officer of the authority informed me that its committee considered that the Secretary of State's action had been "highhanded, cavalier and unreasonable". The Committee was most anxious to pursue the possibility of challenging his action by way of judicial review. That right was granted and a hearing took place. The council was delighted when its application was successful. The court granted the declaration sought; namely,
"that the Secretary of State was under a duty to consider whether he should afford the Council the opportunity of a hearing under Section 11(1)(c) of the Radioactive Substances Act, 1960 before issuing an authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste to Waste Incineration Services Ltd.".
At the hearing an undertaking was given on behalf of the Secretary of State that he would give proper consideration to this point before issuing a fresh authorisation under the Act.
I wish to refer briefly to a letter which my honourable friend in another place, Joan Walley, received from Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory. It stated:
"On the general issue, you propose that local authorities should have an automatic right to a hearing. I cannot agree. For at least thirty years the control of radioactive substances has been and should remain a central government responsibility".
I hope the Committee will agree that local authorities should have an automatic right to a hearing. No one is arguing that it should be other than a central government responsibility. We are arguing that a local authority should have a right to state a case before that responsibility is discharged.
The Minister went on to say:
"It is a matter for local authorities only where the proposed disposal has a significant effect on the locality".
Who is to decide whether it will have a significant effect on a locality? He continued:
"or where the local authority must take special precautions as the result of a disposal. In such cases the existing requirements of RSA60 quite rightly require the proper consultation with a local authority and other public authorities concerned".
I hope that I have indicated, in a sober manner, the seriousness of this small point in this massive Bill. The opportunity to raise the matter has been presented because the Government are quite rightly
1936
doing a great deal to strengthen the protection of the environment. I believe that it is a matter of principle and not one of party animus. It is a matter of interpretation, but I can assure the Minister that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which has briefed me in this matter looks upon it as a very serious matter indeed. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: The effect of the amendment would be to oblige the Secretary of State to give the opportunity of a hearing in respect of every registration and authorisation to the local authority in whose area the activity occurred and to any other such authority affected by the activity. Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 at present a hearing must be given on request to any person refused a registration or authorisation or who has been granted one subject to conditions. The Secretary of State must consider whether to afford a hearing to such local authorities or other persons as he considers appropriate. Following the outcome of the Dudley case to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred, the Secretary of State specifically considers affording a hearing to the local authority and others regardless of whether the recipient does or does not request such a hearing.
I am afraid that we do not agree with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. In many cases, particularly regarding registrations in respect of the keeping and use of radioactive material, local authorities will have no role to play nor action to take. We can therefore see no case for giving them an automatic right to a hearing in such circumstances. In cases where local authorities play a role in the relevant activity, for example where the disposal would take place on a local authority site, that will be taken into account by the Secretary of State in considering whether to grant a hearing.
I must, however, draw the attention of the Committee to the changes which we are introducing to the system in the Bill. The hearing system is being retained but only in respect of the larger operations involving the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority or premises with a nuclear site licence—for example, a nuclear power station. In those cases local authorities are required to be consulted and that fact will be taken into account when considering the issue of a hearing.
The vast majority of applications—there are at present nearly 9,000 as opposed to the 30 major operations—will in future, under the provisions of paragraph 10 of Schedule 5, be subject to an appeals procedure to the Secretary of State against the decision of the chief inspector, who is taking over the power of authorisation and registration. Once again, where a local authority is required to take some action, for example, where disposal to the local authority disposal site arises, the local authority will be consulted.
The details of the appeals procedure will be the subject of secondary legislation but it is the Government's intention that where there is an appeal to the Secretary of State local authorities

1937
which have been consulted because they are required to take some action will be able to make representations.
Finally, I should mention that under the provisions of the Bill, as part of our move to more openness, copies of all applications will be sent to the local authorities in whose area the proposed activity will take place. In referring to the copies of the Section 6 applications, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested that this was a question of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. Applications will be passed to the councils before an authorisation is granted, thus giving the authority the necessary opportunity to comment.
The overall effect of the provisions is that local authorities will be kept fully informed of all proposals for keeping, using, accumulating or disposing of radioactive substances. They will be consulted where they have a role to play, and where they have such a role they will have the opportunity to make representations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, I believe that the noble Lord's answer to the case which was presented very reasonably by my noble friend Lord Graham indicates a somewhat high-handed attitude on the part of the department, not simply about local authorities. As my noble friend said, the Secretary of State has the discretion to determine in this instance whether the local authority may have a locus in the matter. It also indicates a high-handed attitude towards the local populace.
One of the difficulties that has constantly confronted local government and people involved in the disposal of waste, particularly in such a sensitive area as radioactive waste, is that local people feel cut out of the decision-making process. It is surely not a good thing for many people to feel disenfranchised. They then frequently become very hostile to the objectives which are being pursued in terms of disposal. I should have thought that a somewhat less rigid attitude on the part of the department would have been reasonable in these circum stances.
To what extent does the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government suggest that this would be an impediment to the decision-making process? If local authorities have no locus in the matter they will not wilfully interfere. They want to carry out their responsibilities to the local electorate. They frequently find that this is an area which is particularly sensitive. It is an area which, if that sensitivity is not recognised, can so frequently give rise to unjustified hostility. Therefore, in the interests of making decisions which are seen to be democratic, it is probable that the purposes which the Government want to put forward will be advanced rather than hindered.
To that extent, therefore, I find the Government's response not only disappointing but also foreign to their own purposes. Therefore, I join with my noble friend in asking the Government to reconsider the statement that has just been made so that when we come to the Report stage of the Bill we might hear something rather more positive from them than has been the case this afternoon.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Like my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I am baffled as to what impediment to progress or the speed of the planning process would result if a local authority is given the right to state its case. It does not necessarily follow that given the right to state a case the authority will wish to state it on every occasion. The rules provide that the Secretary of State will have the discretion to decide whether or not to provide a local authority with the opportunity to state a case. That is all very well, but this is a question of whether the man in Marsham Street knows better than the man in Dudley town hall or any other town hall.
I repeat what I said earlier when I made my substantive case. There is no question of challenging the right of central government and its agencies to make the decisions. The Chamber is full of people who have experience of serving on local, metropolitan, London borough or county councils. Mistakes can happen and when something dreadful occurs, whether it relates to an obnoxious smell or is a danger or whatever, people turn first to the local council and ask, "What did you say or do?" It is bad for democracy if the answer of the local council is, "Well, we wrote a letter. That is all that we could do. We sent for the Member of Parliament and he tried to do something. But our powers were limited".
The Minister said that they—the Government—will decide in circumstances in which they consider that the local authority has no role to play. I cannot envisage any application in which the local authority has no role to play, though I can well imagine it not being actively involved in giving planning permission and oversight, etc.
The Minister and, I believe, his advisers entirely misjudge the raison d'être of a local council and councillors. They are responsible for what happens in their communities. They may not be legally responsible. However, most people look to their town hall for some protection and assurance. We believe that the local authorities should have an automatic right.
The Minister tried to fob off the charge by saying that in future copies of all applications would be submitted to the local council. I can imagine that causing even more aggravation. Copies of applications will be sent to the local council but it will not have the automatic right to put a case against them. Its views may very well be sought but it will not be able to attend a hearing.
I am afraid that the Minister has been less than fair to what is a community point of view although it is a non-political point of view. I intend to withdraw the amendment but before doing so I wonder whether the Minister has anything further to say on this matter.
Lord Reay: I do not have much to add to my original reply to the amendment. I reject the charge that the Government are being high-handed in this matter. Following the outcome of the Dudley case and as a result of the decision on that occasion, the Secretary of State specifically considers affording a hearing to local authorities and others regardless of whether such a request for a hearing is made by the recipient.

1939
I believe that the noble Lord recognises our position. Where a local authority is required to take some action then the local authority will be consulted; but in other cases we do not believe it appropriate that the local authority should have an automatic right to be consulted.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is a disappointing response. The Minister in effect is again saying that—to use the clumsy phrase—the men in Marsham Street know better than the people in the local town hall about the depth of feeling and anxiety of local councillors. Those who serve on local councils will no doubt take careful note. This is not a tuppenny-ha'penny affair. A great deal of damage can be done to public confidence in the absence of the local authority (of whatever political persuasion) being given the opportunity to go back to the community and say, "At least I told the inspector or the man from the Ministry what we, the local representatives, think".
The Minister has done nothing at all to allay the natural anxieties of people in the local areas. We listened carefully to what he had to say. We shall certainly come back to this matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 95 [Fees and charges under 1960 Act]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 315:
Page 102, line 43, leave out ("sections") and insert ("section").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 320 and 323. Amendments Nos. 315, 320 and 323 are designed to simplify the drafting of the Bill. Amendment No. 323 removes from Clause 95 the separate new provision on fees and charges for Scotland, but the effect of that provision is retained by Amendment No. 320. As a result of these changes, the effect of the clause will remain unaltered but the clause will be a little shorter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 103, line 5, leave out ("for varying") and insert ("in respect of the variation of").
The noble Lord said: This is a group of minor amendments designed to clarify the Government's intentions in Clause 95, which provides for the introduction of a charging scheme. It is our aim that fees and charges levied under the scheme should cover the cost of administration of registrations and authorisations at all stages. That includes consideration of applications and the issue of the registration and authorisation documents; related inspections; assessments of existing and new plant and sites for the purposes of registrations and authorisations and the effects that they might have on the environment; and monitoring the
1940
environment for compliance with registrations and authorisations.
The new Section 15A(4) as currently drafted enables the recovery of expenditure relating to registrations or authorisations effected or granted under the provisions of the 1960 Act. This wording would allow charging for the work involved in approving the registration or authorisation but does not make it clear that it would enable recovery of costs such as inspection and assessment work nor the costs of monitoring radioactive discharges.
Amendment No. 321, by referring to the functions relating to the registrations and authorisations, clarifies the scope of the clause to embrace the full range of costs which the Government are seeking to recover.
Amendments Nos. 316, 317 and 318 are technical amendments, designed to ensure consistency of drafting within Section 15A(1). Section 15A(1)(a) refers to fees payable in respect of applications, and these amendments provide for the same phrase to be used when referring to fees payable for varying registrations and authorisations (in paragraph (b)) and charges payable for the subsistence of registrations and authorisations (in paragraph (c)). I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 317 and 318:
Page 103, line 6, leave out ("for varying") and insert ("in respect of the variation of").
Page 103, line 11, leave out ("consideration") and insert ("respect").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 319:
Page 103, line 14, leave out from ("and") to end of line 16 and insert ("if it appears to the enforcing authority that the holder of an authorisation has failed to pay a charge in due consideration of the subsistence of the authorisation, he may, by notice in writing served on the holder, revoke the authorisation.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 322 but not, as the grouping suggests, to Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 because Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 deal with notices while the former amendments deal only with charges.
The first amendment largely seeks to bring Part V into line with the rest of the Bill, particularly Part I. The replacement section which forms the core of this amendment comes directly from Clause 8(8) of the Bill. I suggest to the Committee that it provides some continuity and indeed consistency where fees and charges are concerned. Surely the conditions of an authorisation should relate solely to the running of a plant. It cannot be said that charges relate in any manner or form to the operation of that plant. Hence they should be excluded from the conditions of an authorisation.
A charging scheme should run independently of an authorisation procedure so that charges can be recoverable as an ordinary debt in the usual way. I understand that that is so in the case of cost recovery charges which are made currently by the nuclear

1941
installations inspectorate to site licences. It is also likely to be of value to the authorities since they will be able to alter the structure of a charging scheme without the authorisation; and to do so more easily if it is not fixed in legislation.
The way that the Bill is currently framed means that industry may be asked to pay twice for the same thing. Without Amendment No. 322, I can see very little discipline being applied to a control authority to avoid any duplication of effort and thereby cost. The nuclear industry is particularly vulnerable to double charging; so also are other industries since many carry out their own monitoring procedures. Industry can carry out monitoring and produce results. Why cannot those results be deemed acceptable to a control authority if that control authority has already agreed the criteria? Otherwise, we shall see a control authority producing its own monitoring. That may well have a greater expense attributed to it. It may also encourage industry to reduce its own efforts in monitoring. Therefore something can slip through the net.
Why cannot we have a co-ordination of monitoring so that we have the same criteria? I can see no such provision in the Bill. We could thereby reduce both effort and costs. That is the substance of the two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 319 would remove from the conditions of authorisation the requirement that arty applicable charge must be paid and proposes instead to give the chief inspector the power in cases of non-payment to revoke the authorisation.
It is our view that the current drafting is more effective in the context of this part of the Bill. By making payment of prescribed charges a condition of authorisation, it gives the chief inspector greater flexibility in his response to non-payment. Instead of having to make a choice between doing nothing and revoking an authorisation—which could be the effect of my noble friend's amendment—he has other options open to him such as issuing an enforcement notice or initiating a prosecution. That would be particularly relevant where the chief inspector wished an authorisation to continue; for example, in a university or hospital where perhaps more than one activity might be covered by a single authorisation and where it would be inappropriate therefore to revoke the authorisation.
In Amendment No. 322 my noble friend proposes that where an operator is required as a condition of his authorisation to carry out monitoring, he should not be required to meet the cost of monitoring carried out by the control authority. I am afraid that we cannot agree with the intention of the amendment. In accordance with the polluter-pays principle, we intend to recover from operators the costs to government of undertaking their duties under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. This intention was clearly set out in our recently published consultation document on the proposals for the amendment of the 1960 Act, and was strongly supported. None of the respondents raised objections to the principle involved.
I believe it is quite right that as a condition of an authorisation an operator can be required to carry
1942
out certain types of monitoring; and that if a chief inspector regards it as necessary that other monitoring should be carried out by him, then those costs should also be borne by operators. Where monitoring is carried out by both parties, that carried out by the control authority will not duplicate that carried out by the operator; rather it will supplement it, as necessary.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. On the first amendment, I do not believe that it gives the inspector flexibility; I believe that it gives him a much greater leverage. If he can close down a plant by the somewhat punitive tool of the charge, that does not seem to show much flexibility. I shall wish to consider what my noble friend has said at rather greater length. I may wish to come back to it later.
On Amendment No. 322 my noble friend misunderstood my intention a little. There is no intention to escape the now generally accepted principle that the polluter should pay. It is a question of whether the polluter should pay twice. He gives me no encouragement in his answer to suggest that there should be a proper and joint consultation to ensure that there is no overlap between the monitoring process undertaken by the company's own inspectorate and the control authority. Again I shall wish to consider the matter further. I may wish to bring it back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 320:
Page 103, line 31, at end insert ("and different schemes may be made and revised for different areas.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 321:
Page 103, line 37, leave out from ("Food") to end of line 39 and insert ("in exercising or performing their functions under this Act in relation to registrations and authorisations").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 322 not moved.]
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 323:
Page 103, leave out from beginning of line 43 to end of line 9 on page 104.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96 [Enforcement powers of chief inspector]:
6 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 323A:
Page 104, line 21, at end insert ("or
(c) is keeping, using, disposing of or accumulating radioactive material, or using mobile radioactive equipment, in a manner which is causing, or which in his opinion may cause, harm to the environment or to human health").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 323A which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
The purpose of the amendment is to insert a criterion under the new provisions on enforcement notices, whereby the chief inspector may take action where he considers that there is damage to environment or health. The amendment also draws attention to disparities in drafting between the new Sections 11B and 11C contained in Clause 96 whereby the environmental issue is addressed in the latter.
New Section 11B, inserted into the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by the first part of Clause 96, is intended to set out the grounds on which the chief inspector may serve an enforcement notice on a person operating under licence within terms of the Act. Under the new section as drafted, the criteria which the chief inspector may use are limited to a failure to comply with a limitation under the authorisation, or a likelihood of such failure to comply. A notice once issued must state the chief inspector's opinion, specify the matters constituting the failure (or likely to constitute a failure) and specify the steps to be taken. These provisions in subsections (1) and (2) of the new section fall short of enabling the chief inspector to issue an enforcement notice where damage to the environment or health is anticipated.
The first amendment would, therefore, give the chief inspector powers where he believed that radioactive material was kept, used, disposed of or accumulated (or such equipment used) in a way which was causing or was likely to cause harm to the environment or to human health, specifying steps to remedy the matter. The purpose of Section 11B, therefore, is to give the chief inspector a power to order a tightening up of standards, or a clean-up operation, as a means of limiting or averting harm while falling short of a full prohibition. The second amendment is a consequential amendment on this provision.
It might be considered curious that the approach adopted in these amendments is reflected in the second section, Section 11C contained in Clause 96. Under subsection (1) of that new section, the chief inspector has power to serve a notice where he considers that the carrying on of an activity involves an imminent risk of pollution of the environment or harm to human health. A notice under Section 11C may be served whether or not licence conditions are being complied with, and includes a requirement that the activity shall be suspended until specified steps to reduce or avert the harm have been taken. In other words, the power to go beyond the condition of the licence and to assess the damage to health or to the environment exists in respect of more serious cases which may lead to a prohibition notice but does not exist in cases where smaller steps only are to be taken.
The Minister may reply that Section 11B is intended to deal only with the enforcement of licence conditions and that serious cases involving a prohibition or cessation of activity can be dealt with under Section 11C. The problem with that interpretation is that small examples of damage to the environment or to health, which might not in themselves justify a prohibition notice, will fall
1944
between the two sections. Under subsection (3) of Section 11C there is a requirement that a notice shall direct that an authorisation shall cease at least in part while the notice is in effect. In other words, Section 11C can be used only where the inspector is prepared to suspend or revoke the licence. It appears that it will not be effective in cases where (perhaps as a result of the increased understanding of the technology) there is understood to be damage to the environment or to health, but not of such significance that a stop notice will immediately be justified.
I am asking the Minister to consider whether there is not a small but perhaps significant loophole in these provisions. And more generally, I ask him to explain the thinking behind the difference in the scope of these two new sections. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Clause 96 introduces new enforcement powers for the chief inspector. These are the powers to serve enforcement notices and prohibition notices. The chief inspector may serve an enforcement notice if he is of the opinion that a person is failing to comply, or is likely to fail to comply, with any limitation or condition subject to which any registration or authorisation issued under the Act has effect. Should the chief inspector be of the opinion that the continuation of a register or authorised activity risks causing pollution to the environment or harm to human health, regardless of whether or not the conditions of the registration or authorisation have been breached, he may serve a prohibition notice. These powers reflect our determination to prevent pollution wherever possible. I am sure that they will generally be welcomed by the Committee.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on behalf of his noble friend, demonstrates his anxiety that effective action should be taken to combat pollution or the threat of it. I fully share his anxiety and for that reason we have introduced the two new enforcement powers. We believe that the amendments are unnecessary because we have already catered for his anxiety.
Amendments Nos. 323A and 323B would have the effect of empowering the chief inspector to serve an enforcement notice if he were of the opinion that a person was keeping or using radioactive material, or mobile radioactive apparatus, or accumulating or disposing of radioactive waste in such a manner as to cause or threaten to cause harm to the environment. The Bill as drafted already empowers the chief inspector to deal with those situations effectively.
Registrations and authorisations issued under the Act contain stringent conditions which prevent a registered or authorised person from acting in such a way as to cause harm to the environment or to human health. Should he do so he will be in breach of his conditions and Clause 96 enables the chief inspector to serve an enforcement notice on him. Should immediate action be needed—for example, if a person is acting in such a way that, in the opinion of the chief inspector, harm to the environment or to human health may be caused and such harm is

1945
considered to be imminent—that person may be served with a prohibition notice. Therefore, the two types of notice effectively complement each other. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my explanation and will not press his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he took in stating his case and pointing out, perhaps fairly, that the amendments are unnecessary. I am used to being told by Ministers that my amendments are unnecessary and, aggravatingly, finding that they are unnecessary. I do not doubt that again the Minister is right.
We are dealing with sensitive issues. The Minister has told me that the chief inspector has the power to act quickly and arbitrarily in order to assure the public and to threaten someone who he may suspect of acting in a way which is ultra vices his permission. If the power is already contained in the Bill that will set at rest the mind of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which represents many local authorities. The Minister's reply will be read carefully. I doubt that I shall need to return to the matter at a later stage but if necessary I shall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 323B not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 324:
Page 104, line 42, at end insert:
("(c) A person on whom an enforcement notice is served may appeal against the notice to the Secretary of State,").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 325. I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the two amendments separately. They deal with enforcement notices and prohibition notices. As the Bill is drafted there is no right of appeal in the event of an enforcement notice or prohibition notice being served on an industrial company. In all fairness to industry there should be such a right of appeal. It would allow a company to put its case to the Secretary of State or to a person nominated by the Secretary of State if that were the wish.
One must bear in mind that in the industry dealing with radioactive substances a refusal without the ability to put one's case can be extraordinarily costly to a company in monetary terms and, more importantly, in terms of its reputation. In Part I, Clause 15 provides for appeals as respects authorisations and against variation, enforcement and prohibition notices. Although the subject matter in Part I and this part may be different, surely the natural justice element is precisely the same. It is on that basis that I beg to move Amendment No. 324.
Lord Reay: Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 seek a right of appeal for operators in respect of enforcement and prohibition notices. However, I am informed that that right is already given in Schedule 5(10) in the new Section 11D(2). It applies to any person. Therefore my noble friend can be reassured by that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to the Minister for pointing that out to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 325 not moved.]
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Application to Crown of 1960 Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 98 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I have given notice to the Lord Chairman and to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I wish to refer briefly to Clause 98. It provides that, with the exception of MOD premises, those occupied by visiting forces and Her Majesty in her personal capacity, the Crown shall be bound by these provisions. It also provides that instead of criminal prosecutions where there has been a breach of the requirements of the Act, the High Court, or the Court of Session in Scotland, may on application from the enforcing authority make a declaration of non-compliance.
One welcomes this modification of Crown privilege. This point was raised at midnight one evening last week and my noble friends are considering the matter in relation to statutory nuisances. I hope that we have this right or nearly right now. However, one should bear in mind that, although subsection (1) of the new Section 14 of the 1960 Act is welcome—it states that the provisions of the Act shall bind the Crown—subsection (2) states that it does not apply to premises:
"occupied on behalf of the Crown for naval, military or air force purposes or for the purposes of the department of the Secretary of State having responsibility for defence".
Nor does it apply:
"for the purposes of a visiting force".
I cannot expect a reply on this point from my noble friend at present. However, we should be assured at a later stage of the Bill that visiting forces, being exempt from the provisions of this important Act, have given an undertaking that they will nevertheless comply with it, because we have very large visiting forces here. We welcome them. However, we expect them to co-operate in the protection of the environment and to join, I hope, with our armed forces in setting an example to the rest of the Community.
Therefore, at a later stage I should like to be assured that measures are being taken to ensure co-operation. I need say nothing further except that I hope that my noble friends will take on board this very gentle warning. We shall have to return to this matter on Report.
Lord Reay: I am grateful to my noble friend and I am extremely interested in what he said. I shall read carefully what he said, consider it and then take the matter from there.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Further Amendments of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960]:
6.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 325A:
Page 165, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (3) (offences relating to the disclosure of information)

(a) for the words "relating to any relevant process or" there shall be substituted the words "whose disclosure is contrary to the interests of national security or which relates to any"; and

(b) the definition of "relevant process" shall be omitted.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 325E and 325F. Members of the Committee who were involved in the passage of the Food Safety Bill through this Chamber may remember that I moved amendments stimulated by the Campaign for Freedom of Information on the question of manufacturing processes. After consultations with the Government, they were good enough to modify their original provisions, believing that, as we said, they were unnecessarily stringent.
I say straight away that the current Bill is welcome in that it goes a long way down the route of positive disclosure of information and nothing I say should detract from that. As we know, it extends the public's right to information in various areas by requiring public registers containing certain specified information to be available to the public.
Schedule 5 deals with amending the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 which regulates the use of radioactive materials and disposal of waste. My amendments seek to modify the new disclosure provisions of the current Bill. Section 13(3) of the 1960 Act states:
"If any person discloses any information relating to any relevant process or trade secret used in carrying on any particular undertaking which has been given to or obtained by him under this Act or in connection with the execution thereof, he shall … be guilty of an offence under this subsection".
That offence can carry a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. The current Bill increases the fines which can be imposed for this offence on summary conviction from £400 to £2,000.
The key to that section is the words:
"any relevant process or trade secret".
The Bill's disclosure provisions also steer clear, in other parts, of the phrase "relevant processes". No information about a relevant process or trade secret or information which the Secretary of State has directed must not be disclosed on national security grounds will be disclosed under the new disclosure provisions.
Relevant process is defined as:
"any process applied for the purposes of, or in connection with, the production or use of radioactive material".
That seems to us to be rather too wide. It is possible that that definition was inserted into the 1960 Act on the assumption that the use of radioactive materials was largely to do with atomic weapons production and that "relevant process" was an all-embracing way of saying "national security". One understands that that might have been the case. Civil nuclear power was in its infancy and some of the
1948
current uses of radioactive materials in consumer products such as smoke alarms or for food irradiation were unheard of. The use of radioactivity in medical research and treatment was not as well developed as it is today.
Incidentally, the secrecy clause does not directly impede disclosure about radioactive wastes. That is because "relevant process" is defined in terms of the handling of radioactive materials, and the definition of the latter specifically excludes radioactive wastes. On the other hand, there is no direct duty to disclose information about radioactive waste disposal. The amendment, if accepted, would be the only requirement.
The present situation therefore is that there is no duty to disclose information regarding problems relating to disposal of radioactive waste and there is a legal bar on the disclosure about processes which generate radioactive waste. That is out of keeping with the spirit of the Bill, which is generally positive. It inhibits disclosure; in other words, it inhibits an inspector from explaining why a problem has arisen or from trying to allay fears by explaining the precautions that have been taken. He cannot discuss anything relating to the process, otherwise he comes under the terms of these rather stringent gaol sentences.
The clause is excessive. Any necessary protection could be achieved by limiting the clause to trade secrets and to national security. It is redundant because the new Official Secrets Act also protects information relating to defence, including nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons research. However, for the offence under the Official Secrets Act the disclosure must be damaging, and no proof of harm is required for an offence under the Radioactive Substances Act.
To sum up, the three amendments leave in place the existing protection of trade secrets, which is important. In tabling these amendments, there is no intention to undermine people's trade secrets. The amendment removes the protection for "any relevant process" and deletes the definition of "relevant process" from the 1960 Act, as the concept would then be redundant. Instead, it would protect information the disclosure of which is contrary to the interests of national security. That is a phrase used elsewhere in the Bill and is one of the grounds for withholding material from public registers of pollution information.
It is not my intention to press the amendments today. I hope that the Government can give some indication of their immediate feelings; but it may be an idea that at some stage between now and the later stages of the Bill we hold discussions with the relevant Minister. It is in that spirit that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This amendment is supported by those of us on these Benches. I rise simply to say that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, put the case very well. There is little more that I can add.
I hope that the Minister is seized of two points. First, that there needs to be full and frank disclosure of information; secondly, there needs to be access to

1949
that information by the public and those who are interested and affected. We are not simply speaking of the citizen or the consumer but commercial interests as well. There needs to be a sense of balance.
The Bill is part of a parliamentary process to open up access to information. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly pointed out that above all else we need to protect national security and commercial confidentiality. The amendment being moved and the subsequent group achieve precisely that effect, and at the same time maintain those two protections.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 325A seeks to amend the offence provision in Section 13(3) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 relating to the disclosure of information by removing the offence of disclosing information relating to a relevant process and replacing it with an offence of disclosing information contrary to the interests of national security. It also removes the definition of "relevant process" in Section 13(3) of the 1960 Act.
Amendment No. 325E would require the chief inspector to refrain from disclosing information contrary to the interests of national security, instead of refraining from disclosing information relating to any "relevant process". Amendment No. 325F would amend the powers of the chief inspector and, as the case may be, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to direct local authorities that all or any part of documents sent to them is not to be available for public inspection. Instead of giving directions for the purpose of preventing disclosure of "relevant processes", directions would be given for the purpose of disclosing information contrary to the interests of national security.
I am afraid that the Government are not able to accept these amendments. I appreciate that under other parts of the Bill there are only two categories of information where public access to information is to be restricted; that is, information which is commercial-in-confidence, and information the disclosure of which is contrary to the interests of national security. Under the 1960 Act we have a third category, namely disclosure of information relating to any "relevant process". The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, read out the definition of "relevant process" from the 1960 Act. It has been an offence to disclose such information since the 1960 Act was enacted; and given the very nature of radioactive substances, we consider it right that that situation should remain. There can be instances where information on radioactive material cannot be properly classified as "trade secret" or as having national security implications—for example, some university activities such as the operation of large irradiation sources—but where disclosure should rightfully be restricted. I would expect such instances to be infrequent, but in the interests of equity it is only right that there should be provision for them.
I ask the Committee to bear in mind the considerable amount of information which will become available to the public in respect of radioactive substances as a result of the provisions of the new Section 13A. All registrations and authorisations to discharge radioactive waste into
1950
the environment will be available to members of the public from relevant local authorities and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. Details of what radioactive chemicals are authorised for discharge into sewers, for example, will be in the public domain for the first time. That demonstrates our commitment to greater openness while recognising that a balance must be struck.
I note the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, not to press the amendment. I shall be happy to meet him at any time to discuss the issue further. Meanwhile, I hope that I have given him at least the initial reaction of the Government to the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It seemed to me that he was not quarrelling with the argument that I placed before the Committee, save that there might be processes which fall somewhere between the scope of the present provisions and the scope of the amendment that I moved; for example, certain university processes.
I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of everyone concerned to define those processes and include them in the Bill. That would exclude from this compendium phrase those matters which should be in the public domain in the interests of enabling the inspector to reassure the public in cases where things have gone wrong. That is something we shall need to consider further. I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to discuss the matter with me. On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 325B:
Page 166, line 31, at end insert:
"( ) any report of an investigation which he has carried out into the effect on human health or environment arising from any activity which is or is required to be subject to an authorisation or registration under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 325B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 325C and 325D. The amendment refers to paragraph 15 of Schedule 5 on page 166 of the Bill as printed. It contains a list of items of which the chief inspector shall keep copies. Those copies are kept partly to fill the filing cabinets of the people involved, but partly also to give the public access to them. The amendments extend that list; in other words, they extend the subjects on which we believe disclosure should be available to the public. For example, Amendment No. 325B requires a chief inspector to make available a copy of any report of an investigation which he has carried out into possible human health and environmental hazards arising from activities regulated under the 1960 Act. There is no precedent for that in the Bill. We also want to see some of the requirements introduced elsewhere.
Amendment No. 325C requires the chief inspector to disclose, on request, details of any convictions against any person under the 1960 Act. This mirrors disclosure provisions elsewhere in the Bill. For example, Clause 20(1)(f) requires convictions to be entered on registers relating to integrated pollution control so it does not seem unreasonable that they should be included in relation to this part of the Bill.
Clause 61(1)(f) requires convictions to be entered on registers of waste disposal.
Finally, Amendment No. 325D adds sampling results of the type of information which the chief inspector must disclose. He would have to say what action, if any, he has taken as a result of any sampling inquiry. This requirement is modelled on similar provisions in the 1989 regulations relating to the control of pollution registers which require the National Rivers Authority to keep public registers of water pollution sampling and to note any action taken as a result of any findings. The amendment is therefore a modest expansion of provisions already contained in the Bill. Nevertheless, we believe that these extensions are necessary in the interests of the general public. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: The effect of Amendment No. 325B would be to require the chief inspector to send to local authorities, and to keep and make available to the public himself, any report relating to any investigation about the effect of any activity under the Bill on the environment or human health. This amendment is so widely drawn that it would place an absolute obligation on the chief inspector to make available almost all the written work of the inspectorate. Such a system would be counter-productive in that it would swamp the system and make it less effective in giving the public the opportunity to examine documents of real significance.
There are similar objections to Amendment No. 325D which would require every analysis of every sample to be sent to local authorities and kept and made available to the public by the chief inspector. We do, however, intend that summary data will be immediately available and that more detailed information will be available on request. The data immediately available would indicate that further information was available. In this way we aim to have a system that is easy to use while at the same time being comprehensive.
Amendment No. 325C would require the chief inspector to send to local authorities and keep himself a record of convictions under the Bill. The drafting of the amendment is flawed in that it would require records of convictions to be kept without any time limit, contrary to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, but we are in sympathy with its aims. If the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment we will submit a correctly worded amendment for consideration on Report.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful. It is nice to have at least one sugar-plum in a short afternoon's work. I am not surprised at the reply on the other two amendments. I have some hesitation about them as drafted. The wise course for us to take is to consider the matter. I am interested in what the noble Lord said about having a summary kept of the information available. That sounds a useful facility. Again, this can be discussed, but I am grateful for the noble Lord's response to the amendments, particularly
1952
Amendment No. 325C. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 325C to 325F not moved.]
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 326:
Page 167, line 27, after ("Scotland)") insert ("— (a)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 327, 328 and 390. These amendments make changes to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 which affect Scotland only. Amendment No. 326 is a minor drafting change. Amendment No. 327 makes a change to the Scottish application of the 1960 Act which is consequential on the revision of Section 11 of that Act in Schedule 5 of the Bill, Amendment No. 328 updates the list of enactments contained in Schedule 1 of the 1960 Act, which has become somewhat dog-eared since 1960. Amendment No. 390 is consequential on Amendment No. 328. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 327:
Page 167, line 36, at end insert (";
(b) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(f) in section 11, subsections (1) and (4) shall be omitted." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 328:
Page 167, line 36, at end insert:
("18A. —(1) In Schedule 1 to the 1960 Act (enactments, other than local enactments, to which section 9(1) applies)—

(a) paragraphs 9 and 11 shall be omitted;

(b) after paragraph 17 there shall be added the following paragraphs—

"17A. Section 201 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
17B. Section 124 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 [Purpose of Part VI and meaning of "genetically modified organisms" and related expressions]:
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 328A:
Page 107, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) This Part shall not apply to organisms produced according to good industrial large-scale practice (GILSP) as agreed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 328B. These amendments are concerned with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Committee will know that genetic engineering is used to put useful genes into bacteria, yeasts and other micro-organisms which can then be cultivated to

1953
produce such products as insulin, blood clot dissolvers and other products of use to man.
Clearly these production organisms are contained within culture vessels, so these practices are perfectly safe as they are embraced by what is known as good industrial large-scale practice (GILSP), which is a concept of minimal physical containment that has been applied to industrial large-scale uses of certain genetically modified organisms. These organisms have been determined by rigorous assessment to be of low risk. The assessment includes the criteria of limited survival in the environment without adverse consequences.
This good industrial large-scale practice is part of a much wider scientific framework developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the safe use of recombinant organisms in industry and the environment. It has been widely adopted by national, European and United States regulators alike; in particular, the Health and Safety Executive's genetic manipulation regulations of 1989 and the European Commission's directives on biotechnology.
These good industrial large-scale practice organisms are widely used throughout industry, particularly in the food and antibiotic industries, for strain improvement purposes. There are three notable examples. The first is escherichia coli; a bacterium used in the production of human growth hormone and insulin. The second example is penicillium chrysogenum, which is a fungus used in the production of penicillin G. The third example is a saccharomyces species which is a yeast used in the production of beer.
Not only would it seem inappropriate on scientific grounds to include good industrial large-scale practice organisms within the scope of Part VI of the Bill, but I also believe that the commercial penalty would be too high a price to pay. The increased regulatory burden would reduce investment in these genetic engineering programmes.
As regards Amendment No. 328B, the recently-adopted European directive on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs specifically excludes these natural recombinant techniques from its scope. Incidentally, that European directive was agreed by all environmental Ministers, including our own, on 23rd April of this year. The United Kingdom Genetic Manipulation Regulations 1989 also exclude techniques that occur naturally.
If such techniques were included in this Bill it would put the UK industry at a serious competitive disadvantage with its European counterparts in terms of the regulatory bureaucracy. The techniques are widely used in industry; in particular, mutagenesis accounts for most if not all micro-organisms used in the United Kingdom antibiotics industry. It would also follow from this amendment that Clause 100, line 25, should have deleted from it the words,
"or of mutation inducing agents".
I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I listened with care but not with total comprehension to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It is not because he did not explain the matter very well, but that it involves some knowledge of technology. I confess that that is beyond me. Perhaps I may turn to something a little more mundane. What worries me is that, as I understand it, the OECD is in the process of revising its guidelines. It has produced a draft paper which is currently being considered by government.
That being the case, is it not premature for the proposal made by the noble Lord to be moved at this juncture? It will be interesting to hear the Government's response to what the noble Lord has argued. I hope that they will say that it is premature to introduce this notion into the Bill. As I understand it, the definition is not static. Therefore, it may be inappropriate to include it in primary legislation. That deals with Amendment No. 328A.
I now turn to Amendment No. 328B, which is a somewhat dangerous amendment proposed by the noble Lord. It tries to narrow the definition of a GMO to an extremely narrow and confined extent. Effectively, it would neutralise the purpose of the section. This is an area that is changing with great rapidity. Therefore, is there not a strong case for saying that we need to have flexibility in order to control modified organisms? Consequently, it would be preferable to have a wide definition narrowed by regulation in this particular instance rather than a narrow, closed definition. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I take a different view to that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. In the course of my professional career I have been involved in the fermentation industries. I know perfectly well that it is no good barring the front door and leaving the kitchen window open. These organisms are continually mutating; they are affected by wild strains, cross-fertilisation and so on. It is a long time ago but, in the 1950s or thereabouts, Professor Pontecorvo of Glasgow University came to me and said, "I have made a discovery; I wonder if I have made an invention".
He had discovered that if one takes yeasts that normally breed not sexually, but asexually, and dopes them with camphor and colchicine, they will breed sexually. Then one can cross two different species of yeast. I said to him, "I do not know whether you can make a patent application on that but I shall try on your behalf". That was in the context of the National Research Development Corporation, because at that time I was the managing director.
Curiously enough, we managed to persuade the Patent Office to grant a patent on the process. I remember reading the specification and taking a taxi round to the Royal Society and seeing there the father of my present noble friend Lord Adrian, who was then President of the Royal Society. I put him on notice that this was the beginning of genetic engineering. He said to me, "What can I do about it?" I said, "Nothing, except to keep your eyes open

1955
because there are potential hazards here if we by any chance cross mutagenic pathogens with something else that spreads very easily among human beings".
That is going to happen in any case. We are always having natural mutations. Is cancer research to be brought to an end because we want to find out whether mutagenic agents are also carcinogens? That has been going on for years and years. I believe that the only objection that can be made to the alteration proposed by the noble Lord's amendment—particularly the long list coupled with any forms of natural modification—is that it might possibly fall foul of the exclusio alterius rule, which is a legal doctrine that I only dimly understand. Therefore, I shall not try to expound it except to say that, if one gives a long list of things such as that in the amendment, it may be argued that exclusion of something that you have not mentioned was deliberate. The courts may have to deal with that.
The right attitude to a possible modification of its own rules by the OECD is to wait until it happens and then see what should be done about it. We do not have to violate its rules because it has made a new one. In the meantime, so long as what the noble Lord proposes is conformable to the rules that the OECD is currently working to, then I support his amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): Perhaps I may say at the outset of Part VI of the Bill, that I feel somewhat humble in the presence of many Members of the Committee who are great scientists. I hope that it will not become too readily obvious that I am not a great scientist. I shall do my best to try to take the Committee through this particular part of the Bill. In this instance I shall endeavour to allay the fears of my noble friend.
Both these amendments seek to exclude certain organisms from the scope of Part VI. The effect of Amendment No. 328A would be to disapply Part VI to organisms produced according to good industrial large-scale practice (GILSP) as agreed by the OECD. Amendment No. 328B would extend the list of techniques which are not to be prescribed for the purposes of determining which organisms are to be regarded as genetically modified for the purposes of Part VI.
My noble friend adduces both scientific and commercial arguments in support of his case. I respect his arguments on both grounds, but do not consider that the Bill's provisions will lead to the outcome he fears. The Government accepts that good industrial large-scale practices are valuable. We acknowledge that they have been developed on a sound scientific basis. However, the fact that we may have some confidence about the effects on the environment—for example, of waste streams from some contained uses—of GILSP organisms is not sufficient to exclude them as a category from this Bill. Furthermore, the criteria for classification of an organism in the GILSP category may change over time and we should not be well advised to make exemptions such as these in the Bill itself.
1956
Part VI is a good example of the precautionary approach at work, particularly as it seeks to control potentially new risks to our environment. On those grounds, I think it would be unwise to accept Amendment No. 328A. There is no reason, however, why necessary caution should result in damage to our biotechnology industry. The Bill provides for a regulatory response which matches the risks from particular GMOs as well as ample scope for appropriate exemptions where the risks are known and controllable. The Committee may be assured that GILSP GMOs will be treated in a way which takes full account of the confidence that their inclusion in the GILSP category gives that steps are being taken to protect the environment.
Similar arguments apply to Amendment No. 328B. My noble friend may be assured that care will be taken to ensure that initiative in the British biotechnology industry is not stifled when particular techniques are prescribed as "genetic modification". As I have made clear, the Bill provides for an appropriate hierarchy of control depending on the risks involved. The less the risk, the less the bureaucracy.
On the other hand, we must seek to establish a framework which can cope with as yet unknown risks. It is of course impossible to predict the advance of scientific knowledge and techniques. In summary, the noble Lord's amendment would remove recombinant DNA techniques from the scope of Part VI. If we accept the amendment we run the danger of holding hostages to fortune by saying that certain techniques we now believe to be safe will always be so.
As regards the noble Lord, Lord Cinton-Davis, and his reference to the EC and the OECD, I can tell him that the provisions of Part VI will allow the full implementation of the two EC directives on GMOs. There is a need for wide provision precisely to enable all contingencies to be covered. I hope that I have been able to persuade my noble friend not to press these two amendments.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I should like to thank the Minister for his helpful and careful response, and also the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for their helpful comments. I reserve the right to come back on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 328B not moved.]
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 [Meaning of "damage to the environment", "control" and related expressions in Part VI]:
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 328D:
Page 108, line 34, leave out from ("environment") to end of line 38 and insert ("includes harm to the living organisms supported by the environment").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis. This is a short point but it arises from

1957
the insistence of the Government, which I well understand from earlier debates we have had, that each part of the Bill is to be treated separately in relation to the definitions to be applied. We are therefore permitted, and indeed bound, to look at the definitions in this part of the Bill separately from the definitions in any other part.
It seems odd to me, after the considerable care that I know has been extended in preparing this draft, that damage to the physical environment appears—I thought originally by accident—to have been excluded from the definition of "damage to the environment". The environment itself is defined in Clause 101(2):
"The 'environment' consists of land, air and water".
Under the definition of "damage to the environment" appearing in Clause 101(3) it appears that damage to the physical environment is not included. I cannot believe that that was intended when one considers that micro-organisms can not only damage other organisms or adversely affect man himself but can be, and are, used to have an impact upon minerals and so forth. They are used for the purpose of oil clean-up, for instance.
As I understand that "land" must be interpreted in accordance with its normal interpretation in English law; it means not only the surface but all the minerals beneath it. It surely also applies to buildings, the stone from which they are built and, for instance, the limestone paving in national parks. Therefore, it seems to me that some attention requires to be given to that, and that is the purpose of this brief amendment.
The effect of the amendment would be, first of all, greatly to shorten the definition—which I think must be helpful because, frankly, it is a rather convoluted subsection—and merely to refer to the fact that damage to the environment includes (it is not exclusive),
"harm to the living organisms supported by the environment".
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): If this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 328C.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I should like to support the noble Lord in his amendment. My quarrel with this is the suggestion that GMOs are dangerous, and the qualification comes later, which is a pity. When this amendment was discussed in another place the Minister made the point that controls must prevent damage rather than apply only after it has occurred. It would seem possible that he may have misinterpreted what the amendment seeks to achieve. We are not talking about grammatical differences between one version of a definition as against another, but trying to make the fundamental point that the present drafting of the description of "damage to the environment" implies that all GMOs are dangerous, and obviously this is not the case. I should like to support the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: Clause 101 defined key concepts relating to the protection of the environment from possible damage from GMOs. I endorse your Lordships' concern that we should be particularly
1958
sure that the definitions set out in the clause acheive their purpose. These two amendments in the name of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, appear to risk losing the idea that damage to the environment should be defined as necessarily following from the presence of GMOs in it. It redefines the meaning of "damage to the environment" by putting the emphasis on the actual causing of harm as opposed to the capability to cause harm.
In our view, the existing wording of the Bill establishes the idea of anticipating damage very clearly. The definition of "damage to the environment" in Clause 101(3) stands on two distinct feet: that GMOs are present in the environment and that they are capable of causing harm. "Harm" is, in turn, defined at Clause 101(6). The noble Lord's alternative wording would introduce an element of imprecision since it might be seen to imply that damage to the environment must actually occur in order for GMOs which are capable of causing damage to come within the scope of the definition at Clause 101(4). This would be unacceptable as it would inhibit preventive action being taken against released GMOs where the risk of damage was high. It is for that reason that I ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.
The effect of Amendment No. 328D would be to restrict the definition of "damage to the environment" to saying no more than that such damage includes harm to the living organisms supported by the environment. I can understand the noble Lord's concern to ensure that the concept of environmental damage is as wide-ranging as possible. However, his amendment is unacceptable again because it seeks to establish the scope of the meaning of "damage to the environment" without defining the term itself. As I have implied in relation to Amendment No. 328C, the notion of the capability of GMOs to cause damage—and the possibility of taking pre-emptive action, if necessary, to prevent damage—is fundamental to Part VI of the Bill. That notion must be covered in the definition "damage to the environment". If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, it would be lost, so I urge him not to press the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Nathan: The Minister has made two points to which I should like to refer. He has not answered the point that the damage—as he would say, feared rather than effective—to the physical environment is not, as I understand it, included in the definition in Clause 101(3). That was the main point to which I wished to draw attention.
It is difficult to have a definition of "damage to the environment" which comprehends the danger of damage to the environment. If that is the concept which it is desired shall be incorporated, something quite specific to cope with that point should be stated. As a simple concept in itself, "damage to the environment" seems to me scarcely to require definition at all. However, we are dealing here with an intricate and complicated area and I entirely accept that the phrase can appropriately be inserted

1959
here, provided that it covers damage to the physical environment as well as other matters.
It seems to me that my amendment meets the case. I shall clearly wish to consider carefully what the Minister has said and read his reply in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 328C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 329 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 329A:
Page 108, line 41, leave out ("article or other substance") and insert ("other thing").
The noble Lord said: To avoid any confusion, there is a number to the amendment which does not appear on the Marshalled List. I believe that I am correct in saying that it is Amendment No. 329A. I hope that that helps by way of explanation. Although the amendment does not have a number against it in the Marshalled List, it has a number none the less. In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 330A, 330B and 333ZA.
Amendment No. 329A is a drafting amendment. The effect of Amendments Nos. 330A and 330B is to extend the definition of "harm" in Clause 101(6) to cover harm to the health of humans as well as other living organisms. Amendment No. 333ZA is a consequential amendment which prevents the Secretary of State from imposing consent limitations under Clause 106 in connection with human health and safety matters under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 330:
Page 109, line 7, leave out ("harm to the health of living organisms") and insert (", in the case of living organisms, harm to the health of those organisms").
The noble Lord said: This is another question of definition. It is not necessary for me to repeat the points that I raised earlier. According to the definition in subsection (6), "harm" means:
"harm to the health of living organisms".
The definition does not include harm to the physical components of the environment which are defined. It is the same point again. The amendment is designed to effect the same cure that I mentioned previously; namely, that "harm" in the case of living organisms means harm to the health of those organisms. Under the terms of the amendment, as in the case of damage, "harm" would apply equally to harm to the physical environment, which seems desirable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of Amendment No. 330 would be to alter the definition of "harm" to emphasise that in the case of living organisms it means harm to the health of those organisms. We consider that the present wording achieves the same
1960
effect but in plainer language. I therefore ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Nathan: I am much in favour of plainer language. My amendment has the merit of being somewhat shorter. However, I understand that the noble Earl feels it impossible to accept the amendment and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 330A:
Page 109, line 7, after ("or) insert ("humans or other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 330B:
Page 109, line 9, leave out ("means") and insert ("includes").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 331:
Page 109, line 31, leave out ("deliberately causes") and insert ("fails without reasonable cause to keep it").
The noble Lord said: The question here is whether the words "deliberately" and "intentionally" mean more or less the same thing. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the word used in six different contexts is "intentionally"—not "deliberately"—destroys, injures, picks or uproots.
The Bill uses the phrase "deliberately" releases in a similar context. Under the 1981 Act, the Nature Conservancy Council, Bob Stebbings and many others were unable to secure convictions against offenders who deliberately destroyed bats or their roosts and who knew perfectly well what they were doing and that it was an offence. However, they pleaded to the court, "I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I didn't know. I didn't realise".
The word "deliberately" has the same weakness. The phrase that I suggest would prevent the offender from saying, "Sorry, I didn't know", because he should have known. The court can decide whether he failed to to keep control "without reasonable cause". I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 331 would be to change the definition of the circumstances when an organism is regarded to have been "released". Instead of referring to the deliberate act of releasing an organism, the amendment defines the term by reference to failure without reasonable cause to keep the organism concerned under control.
The effect sought—to cover the circumstances where a GMO is released because its owner fails to keep it under control—is already covered by the definition of "escapes" in Clause 101(10). That is why we resist my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise in support of the amendment because recent history has shown us that when people are not obligated by law to carry out a function they often ignore it. One of the greatest sufferers has been the environment; for example, the wholesale pollution of some of the major rivers of Europe is supposed to have happened by accident, but I do not believe that. The noble Lord does us a

1961
service by drawing such matters to our attention on the basis that the obligation must be forceful and not as contained in the Bill.
Lord Craigton: I thank the noble Lord for his support. This particular point is causing us much worry as regards the 1981 Act. I have given the Minister notice of this and he knows exactly what are the arguments. However, if he is satisfied with the wording I must withdraw the amendment. Nevertheless, I remain rather unsatisfied and I very much hope that we shall not have a case in the future where someone says, "I am sorry, I made a mistake; but I did not mean to do it". In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 331 A:
After Clause 101, insert the following new clause:
("Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall as soon as practicable establish an Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, for the purposes of making recommendations as to releases of genetically modified organisms.
(2) The committee shall be composed of persons appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The committee shall advise the Health and Safety Executive and the Secretary of State on all matters relating to the releases of modified organisms into the Environment.
(4) The committee shall undertake the following activities —

(a) advising the Secretary of State on applications for consents under section 105 below, including any conditions to be attached to such a consent under section 106 below;

(b) the development of codes of practice and guidance for persons seeking to apply for consents;

(c) advising the Secretary of State on the possible categorisation of releases;

(d) advising the Secretary of State on the desirability or otherwise of research, in particular on matters relating to releases;

(e) reviewing on behalf of the Secretary of State the results of releases under consents granted in accordance with this Part;

(f) liaising as appropriate with relevant organisations in other countries;

(g) advising the Secretary of State as to any desirable changes to legislative provisions or to procedure;

(h) assisting the Health and Safety Executive and the Secretary of State in the event of any problems arising from the release or escape of a modified organism; and

(i) such other activities as the Secretary of State may specify.
(5) The committee established under this section shall submit an Annual Report to the Secretary of State on its activities, and he shall lay any such Report before Parliament.
(6) The Secretary of State shall publish any advice submitted to him by the committee, subject only to the exclusion of such matters as may be commercially confidential or confidential in the interests of national security.
(7) For the purposes of facilitating the exercise of its functions under this section, the Secretary of State shall ensure adequate information is available to the committee (and to such other advisory committees as may be appropriate) to enable any such committee to consider each application for consent over such period as may be reasonable, and to submit a recommendation to him, before that application is determined.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, the Secretary of State may determine that information is commercially confidential if its being published would prejudice to an unreasonable degree the commercial interests of a person, subject to the requirements of any current Directive of the European Community.").
The noble Lord said: I am moving this amendment which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He is unable to be here at present and has asked me to speak on his behalf. We have tabled this amendment because we are not satisified that the preconditions which exist for the committee, which the Government have introduced, will enable it to operate satisfactorily. We wish, at least, to test their views on the matter. We should like to see a committee which is able to carry out its work effectively; which will have an existence that is secure; which will have a definitive role and a right to be consulted on each case—that accords with the recommendations made by the Royal Commission—and which will also have minimum safeguards to secure public disclosure of information.
In our submission, the proposal we make in no way impairs the ultimate responsibility which the Secretary of State wished to underline in the course of debates in another place; namely, that he was ultimately responsible for such decisions. That remains inviolate so far as concerns this amendment.
We believe that the proposed advisory committee on releases to the environment which would be set up by the Secretary of State should be a statutory body. We propose that the main recommendations of the Royal Commission should be followed. Consequently, we are suggesting that the committee should be required as a matter of law to submit an annual report and that its advice should be published or at least publishable—leaving aside the important considerations, which we appreciate, that it may be necessary to exclude commercially confidential information or information relating to national security, so long as there is no abuse of that exception as is often the case at present. We also seek to ensure that the committee should have sufficient time and opportunity to consider each application for consent.
What then is the present position adumbrated by the Government? I do not know whether it is my fault, but the lights in the Chamber seem to be going out. Perhaps the lights are dimming all over the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding what has just happened, I want to try to cast some light on the situation.
The present position as perceived by the Government is that the committee should be a non-statutory body. Moreover, to make matters worse, it is a committee which can be replaced at any time at a stroke or on a whim by the Secretary of State. There is no requirement for the Government to consult the committee. Of course, it may be that matters will be referred to it by the Government, but equally the advice which it gives may well be put aside in a compartment of a drawer somewhere and completely bypassed.
The committee is not independent of the Government. There is no requirement for its advice to be published. I believe that, in a day and age when transparency is becoming—or, at least, it should be becoming—the norm, this is wholly unsatisfactory. Moreover, the Secretary of State is not required to indicate whether the committee's advice has been accepted or to give reasons for any decision he may make. Similarly, he has no obligation to consult

1963
the committee. I do not think that that is a very satisfactory situation.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution made many pertinent recommendations. The amendment we propose addresses those recommendations which the Government seek to ignore. We suggest that the advisory committee should advise on the scope for categorising releases; advise on the need for research, especially on matters relating to releases; review the outcome of such releases, liaise with overseas organisations; advise on the possible need for changes in legislation and procedures; and produce an annual report on its activities, on developments in the subject and on the lessons which may be learned.
We also suggest that the Government should be under an obligation to consult the committee in the event of any problem arising from the release or escape of a modified organism. I do not think that any of those propositions is in the least revolutionary; notably they follow, as I said, the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
We also feel that it is appropriate that we should be following in this instance Article 19(4) of EC Directive 90/220, which concerns the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. I put this question directly to the Minister: why should not that directive be followed in this legislation?
We seek to achieve by way of this amendment a real balance between the needs of commercial confidentiality and the requirements of public disclosure. We are in no way complaining about the composition of the Secretary of State's powers to set up the statutory committee in the way in which he thinks appropriate. Indeed, the Government have not failed that test and we make no complaint in that respect.
We also suggest that the advisory committee should have the role of drawing up codes of practice and guidance. That requirement is important at a time when, as has frequently been said during the course of our debates, we are facing a changing situation. Codes of practice need to take that fact into account so that industry can be guided, although it may not be possible to erect legal regulations in sufficient time to deal with the position. It would be helpful to receive from the Government some assurance that they see this role as being appropriate for the advisory committee. Should not the advisory committee also have a specific role in being able to draft regulations as well as codes of practice? I address that question directly to the Minister.
I have one complaint to make. The Royal Commission went to enormous trouble during three years of deliberations to consider the matter and to bring forward these substantive recommendations. However, the Government have sought to ignore them. The situation is even worse. The current advisory committees were not consulted before the Government issued a consultative paper on the introduction of modified organisms into the environment. They were not told of the conclusions reached by them following that consultation which have resulted in this part of the Bill. It is profoundly
1964
unsatisfactory that the situation should have evolved in this way. It means that one must in the future question the Government's attitude about the role of this particular advisory committee.
We know that as a matter of practice the Government have been somewhat cavalier about consultation. Why should we take them on trust in the future? It is with those—I hope that the Minister will agree—important points in mind which reflect upon the Government's future intentions about the committee, its scope and activities, that I raise this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: I support much of what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has said. As Chairman of the Royal Commission, I am sure that many of his statements are right about the time we spent on that study, the intensity of our concern and the importance that the commission placed on the matter. I go so far as to say that the success of the application of GMOs would depend upon the release committee. It is important to give it good recognition. In addition, I am very much of the opinion that its work should be made public—a point to which I am sure we shall return on other amendments, as and when they come up—and that public access to information is important for success in this area of work.
The other important feature is that I should like to feel that if we were to give the committee more substance and standing, that would ensure a constant stream of applications to it. There would be no selection of applications. All applications for release would have to go before that committee.
Lord Addington: I give what support I can to the amendment. Much of what can be said has already been said by those who are expert in the field. Such a committee may not be necessary, but it would be useful. When it comes to those important issues, the Government cannot have too much advice, and the debate cannot be public enough. Too many decisions tend to be taken behind closed doors. There is always a danger of people looking for what they want to see from scientific advice rather than seeing what is actually there.
The Earl of Arran: We are sympathetic to the notion behind this amendment. Indeed, it conforms with the approach that the Government have already adopted on the provision of advice to the Secretary of State on the matters with which Part VI is concerned. Noble Lords will be aware that on 27th April the Minister announced details in another place of a single committee to advise on all aspects of the safety of the release to the environment of genetically modified organisms. Under the chairmanship of Professor John Beringer, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) will advise on notifications and applications for consent to release GMOs and on research needs, proposals for regulations, written guidance and other matters. There is, however, no need for reference to ACRE on the face of the Bill since the Secretary of State can already obtain advice from whomsoever he chooses.

1965
Perhaps I may expand on the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Lewis. The committee will be able to function effectively. Noble Lords can be assured that it will be secure. Its role has been defined in another place. An undertaking has been given that information will be made available while giving due respect to commercial confidentiality. The committee will give advice on categories of releases, on research and on guidance. Assurances have already been given on those matters. Nothing will be gained by making the committee statutory. The release of information will be adequate to meet the requirements of the EC directives. The committee will advise on codes of practice.
However, we can understand the view that a statutory committee would lend weight to the Secretary of State's views. We are therefore prepared to reconsider noble Lords' arguments without any commitment that the Government will bring forward an amendment to provide statutory backing for ACRE. On that understanding, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We welcome the position taken by the Minister in his response. The fact that he is prepared, without commitment, to reconsider the point means that we shall clearly have to return to it on Report. I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. Above all, I thank the Minister. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 331B:
After Clause 101, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to consult
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State before he makes any regulations in pursuance of this Part to consult such persons appearing to him to be appropriate and to take into consideration any representations made to him before issuing such regulations.").
The noble Lord said: The proposed new clause relates to the Secretary of State's duty to consult before making regulations. It provides:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State before he makes any regulations in pursuance of this Part to consult such persons appearing to him to be appropriate and to take into consideration any representations made to him before issuing such regulations".
It is of great concern to many people that some of the most important parts of the regulatory system on GMOs will be settled by regulation and will not be debated during the passage of primary legislation. The Bill gives the Secretary of State a broad power to set down in regulations what should or should not be considered harmful for the purposes of the legislation. That power is designed to cater for those GMOs deliberately intended to cause harm; for example, those acting as pesticides which would otherwise be outlawed by the definition of harm.
It is obviously a power that should be used with great caution. There should be wide consultation with appropriate experts and interests before harm of any kind is exempted from the legislation. Other areas where the regulations will decide important
1966
issues of policy include the criteria for risk assessments, the circumstances under which a consent will be required, and the circumstances under which exemptions from any part of the system will be allowed.
Some of those matters will be determined by the requirements of the European directives on contained use and deliberate release; but as a general principle it is important that regulations receive wider debate than is possible under the usual system for laying statutory instruments.
The amendment is extracted from a parallel power in Section 50 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. That proposal seems to be eminently sensible and reasonable bearing in mind the sensitivity that exists in respect of such matters. Without interfering with the power-making mechanisms, we believe that it is necessary, as a minimum, to consult such persons—that includes organisations—appearing to the Secretary of State to be appropriate. My advice comes from the Green Alliance whose members know a great deal about the issue. Their views should be respected. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would have the effect of imposing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under Part VI. It comes, as the noble Lord pointed out, from Section 50 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State fully intends to consult on the full range of matters on which he has power to make regulations under Part VI. The Committee can be confident that consultations will be comprehensive and thorough; that the scientific community, both sides of industry, environmental groups and others will be included in consultations, and that all views will be taken into account. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment, though it parallels the commitment that I have given, would not surpass it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Again, I am sure that those outside the House will be obliged to the Minister, who said that the amendment is not necessary, not least because he intends that the Bill should do exactly what the amendment lays down. I am sure that he understands the anxiety of people outside the House who wish to make sure that they are consulted. The Minister has not said that every body that thinks it ought to be consulted will be. However I accept what he has said.
The Minister smiles and no doubt he and his advisers will have some idea of whom to consult. I do not mean that it will be a subjective, narrow list. It would be nonsense if the Minister did not include in his consultation the people with something sensible and useful to say. Not only should good relations be borne in mind but also the protection of the environment.
I am sure that those outside the House will read what the Minister has said. I earnestly believe that he has probably said much that may satisfy them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 [Risk assessment and notification requirements]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 331C:
Page 109, line 39, after ("import") insert ("or export").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 331C and speak to Amendments Nos. 331E, 331H, 331P and 331U to 331Y. These amendments all relate to the export of genetically modified organisms. They would place persons seeking to export such organisms under the duty in Clauses 102 and 103 to undertake a risk assessment and precautions. They would also subject such persons to the possibility of a prohibition notice under Clause 104 and the enforcement provision in Clause 10. Most important, they would require the receipt of a consent under Clause 105. The Minister will understand that these are probing amendments at this stage.
We believe that the amendments raise a genuine issue of difficulty. It is recognised that there may be problems in legislating on them under solely United Kingdom provisions. The major concern is over the export of pesticides, which is covered by the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The Act does not make adequate provision for export control. It gives Ministers power to request information, but no more. As many GMOs are in practice likely to be pesticides, there is concern that this aspect of release should be dealt with in this legislation. There is concern too that GMOs may be exported to be used on a trial or experimental basis in less developed countries without adequate safeguards. As there is no international convention yet in place, it is felt that UK legislation should address the issue.
The basic problem, however, is the lack of regulation on GMOs other than in the United States and Japan and in the form of recently issued directives within the European Community. Clearly there is a practical limit on the extent to which UK legislation can regulate activities whose primary focus is an unregulated country, although it is presumably open to us to make requirements of people to the extent that they operate in this country in particular. The consent and risk assessment requirements could possibly be made applicable to exporters before an organism is transferred overseas. We ask the Minister to give his views on this point.
Amendment No. 331E deals with marketing within the European Community. The amendment looks at broadly the same issue in connection with the marketing of GMOs abroad and whether the duties under Clause 102 ought to apply. The intention of the amendment is to argue that the marketing of GMOs, whether it is intended that the sale should take place within the UK, the EC or further afield, should be subject at least to the requirements of a risk assessment and notification under Clause 102.
Similar considerations would arise as in relation to the larger group of amendments prompted by concern over pesticides. However, as the technology develops, the amendments would be applicable to a broader range of GMOs. The issue or marketing of genetically modified organisms arguably raises
1968
complex questions about the way in which their properties are projected for sale and the degree of knowledge imparted to the customer as to the likely levels of risk attached. For example, would it not be desirable for a firm seeking to market a GMO to carry out a risk assessment, to notify the Secretary of State and to be required to make at least a summary of that risk assessment available to any purchaser?
Given the lack of regulation across most of the globe, safeguards such as these would appear to be the minimum that would be acceptable to secure even broadly similar patterns of use in different countries. There seems to be little point in a finely developed regulatory system in Britain and the European Community if there are few, if any, constraints on the use of GMOs generated within those countries and sold outside. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: We agree that there are major problems in controlling and containing the risks associated with GMOs. That after all is the whole reason for Part IV. We can therefore understand the noble Lord's concern to see that the exported GMOs do not create problems for other countries.
The EC directives respectively on the contained use and deliberate release of GMOs contain provisions for the exchange of information on organisms and for clearance by member states before GMO products are marketed. These provisions will be implemented through regulations under Part VI of the Bill for the environment and the Health and Safety at Work Act for health.
In the EC setting, the problem which the GMO might present for the environment of another member state will be considered by that state. That is as it should be because only the receiving state can assess the problem for its environment which a GMO might present.
The noble Lord's amendments seek to go much wider than the directives in terms of the requirements to be applied to GMOs which are to be exported and, in the case of Amendment No. 331E, the countries in which those requirements will operate. While the noble Lord's intention is understandable, this Bill is not the place to pursue such an approach. The regime in Part VI can only take account of risk assessment factors which are relevant to this country and by virtue of the EC directives to the Community. It would be impracticable for the Secretary of State to take into account risk assessment factors relevant to other countries in reaching his decisions.
There is particularly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, dwelt on for some time concerning the export of pesticides. The risk assessment of GMOs and GMOs contained in pesticides will necessarily have a United Kingdom-based risk assessment. The Bill is not the place in which to make provision for the export of pesticides. I understand fully that the noble Lord said that this was a probing amendment and I hope that these answers will satisfy him.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord has said that this is not the correct vehicle through which to

1969
consider exports of pesticides to developing countries. Nevertheless, with respect, I should have thought that it was wholly appropriate to ascertain the Government's views about the possibility of an international convention on this. At present there seems to be absolutley nothing, as my noble friend said at the outset, about GMOs being exported on an experimental basis to developing countries where there may be wholly inadequate safeguards to prevent the population from being exposed to quite unnecessary risks.
That brings to my mind a situation which affected a proposal which was introduced by the Commission and for which I was responsible. I believe it was introduced in 1987. We considered that chemicals which were banned or severely limited for use in the Community—we were largely thinking of pesticides—should be the subject of a proposal for notification to the importing third world country as regards the nature of the chemical. Further, we decided the importing country should have the right to state within a specified time that it did not want the chemical. In that way a government could intervene to frustrate a contract made between an exporter and an importer in a situation where public health could be severely endangered. Equally the importing country could say that the public health element was not as important as getting rid of the pests by using the pesticide concerned.
That proposal was attacked by this Government—in fairness, many other governments also opposed it—on the grounds that one could only proceed to deal with this matter on the basis of an international convention. We are entitled to ask on this occasion what progress the Government have made and what action they have taken to stimulate activity to procure an international convention to eliminate the absolute scandal of the present time whereby literally millions of people according to the World Health Organisation are exposed to risks from activity of this kind. Health is being endangered and lives are being lost on a daily basis. I am glad that my noble friend raised this issue. I think it is appropriate to ask the Government where they stand, even though, as the Minister has perhaps properly asserted, this provision is not the right vehicle in a legislative sense to deal with what is an important matter.
Baroness White: I wish strongly to support my noble friend in this matter. While I entirely accept the submission by the Minister that this provision is not necessarily the right vehicle for legislation, we are, on the other hand, facing more and more problems as regards perfectly reputable firms, and some that are not quite so reputable, being frustrated in dealings with the more developed countries, particularly of the EC. Therefore, understandably in certain circumstances, they are seeking other countries where they can send their products. We are particularly concerned with pesticides at the moment, but there may be other areas which will concern us in the future.
Are the Government going to think actively about this matter? Will they not just take refuge in the fact that in this Bill we can go no further than our
1970
own shores? This matter is another aspect of the relationship between the developed and the developing world. We have faced similar problems as regards the disposal of toxic waste and other matters. In many ways this issue poses a more insidious danger than that of toxic wastes. People may act wrongly from the point of view of the interests of their country, but at least in the matter of waste it is easier for a lay person or a lay official to judge the situation. For lay people this is a much more difficult area in which to reach a conclusion. Lay people have great difficulty in knowing what they should do for the best. It is therefore all the more important that we should address our minds to this issue and discuss it in an international forum.
Lord Craigton: This matter is a great worry to all of us. I hope the Government will take the initiative to call a world convention or something of that kind to get this matter sorted out. The situation at present is very bad.
Lord Monkswell: I have two points to make. While this provision may not be the best vehicle to tackle the problem, we may have to adopt it because it is the only vehicle available to us if the Government cannot provide any other avenues of progress. Further, although superficially Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for what happens beyond our shores in terms of what is exported from this country, we must remember that the world is shrinking every day. Citizens from this country travel widely overseas. It is quite possible that our citizens will be affected by whatever we export to other countries. I believe that the Government have some responsibility in this area. As I have said, failing the advent of any other vehicle that the Government can suggest, we may have to resort to the vehicle we have in front of us.
The Earl of Arran: I should comment on the international anxiety that several Members of the Committee have mentioned. The United Kingdom Government support the pursuit of vigorous international action on GMOs and have been influential in the EC and OECD in securing rational and workable solutions. The United Kingdom will continue to work in international fora such as the United Nations Environment Programme, for a consistent framework of control which embraces and protects the interests of all countries.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I know that the Minister means well, but one is left with the impression that this provision is not the right vehicle for this matter. Everyone who has spoken acknowledges that. However, that will not prevent people outside and those who have spoken here tonight from taking any opportunity they can to draw attention to what they consider to be a potentially dangerous situation.
The Minister rested his case on the fact that there are limits to what we can do in the context of this country and of the EC. We cannot interfere too much with what happens in other countries. I remind the

1971
Minister that when organisms escape elsewhere in the world, for example at Chernobyl, they affect us all. I take the point of what the Minister has said about some of the initiatives which have been taken, which I respect and acknowledge. Nevertheless, we must be seen to be concerned about this matter.
Last week a large conference on the ozone layer took place. There was a Statement in another place on that matter today. I listened to the remarks made at that conference by a lady who I believe came from India. She said that it was all very well for the West to lay down conditions and dates for compliance with certain conditions. She said that her country did not want dates, but rather the technology to deal with the problem. At the end of the day literally billions of people will want to make the world a better place, but they are not so rich as we are and they are not as technologically advanced as we are. We were hoping that the Minister could tell us that he was well seized of our anxieties on this matter. We are concerned about our own health and the health of our children, but we are also concerned about our responsibility as human beings to other human beings throughout the world.
We have sought in this provision to try to deal with the issue so far as we can. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said in effect that we should take some initiative on this matter. The conference that ended last week was obviously not a direct step in this regard. In my notes I have written that there is no international convention yet in place to deal with this particular point. However, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said we should discuss setting up such a convention.
We are not fools and we know that finances and resources are limited and that the Government have certain priorities. The Government are not a free agent. Nevertheless, I think the Minister could have given a more sympathetic reply. I intend to withdraw the amendment. I do not know whether the Minister has a final word to say, even if it is only goodbye.
The Earl of Arran: I merely wished to say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we entirely accept the valuable points that have been made by the noble Lord and many other Members of the Committee, too. We are anxious to continue to play a role in international fora. At this stage I do not believe that I can say anything more helpful than that we have listened very carefully to the anxieties put forward by Members of the Committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 331D:
Page 109, line 39, leave out ("release").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 331D standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 331J, 332J, 332K and 332N. The amendments would delete the word
1972
"release", and Amendment No. 332K proposes a new subsection reading:
"Subject to subsections (7) and (7A) below, no person shall release any genetically modified organism except in pursuance of a consent granted by the Secretary of State in accordance with any limitations or conditions to which the consent is subject".
The effect would be that every proposed release of a genetically-modified organism would be subject to a full consent procedure.
The Bill as drafted does not require that all releases of GMOs go through a consent procedure; namely, that they are subject to scrutiny by an expert committee which advises the Secretary of State on whether the release should take place and under what conditions. Clauses 102 and 105 set out three different levels of control. At the first level of control a risk assessment must be carried out and records kept. At the second level the Secretary of State must be notified. At the third level of control a consent from the Secretary of State must be obtained.
All of those different levels of control can be applied to the genetic modification "acts" covered by the Bill: importing, acquiring, releasing and marketing, in addition to keeping, which is not categorised as an act. It is not therefore clear that all releases will be required to have a consent. We are very concerned that no release to the environment should, at the present level of knowledge, be allowed to go ahead without being subject to a full consent procedure.
The 13th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution stresses that point. Paragraph 6.7 states:
"Given the lack of experience of releases of GEOs … and the certainty that the scope and power of genetic engineering will increase, it would be imprudent at present to define categories which may be exempted from scrutiny".
The RCEP has repeatedly sought clarification from Ministers as to what kind of releases are envisaged as not needing to go through the consent system. The only clarification has been that the matter will be settled in regulations.
In practice, in future years the use of exemptions could be expected to lead to amendments imposing a requirement for consents to all initial releases of GMOs. That is not specified in the Bill. It should cover at least all such initial releases in the UK whether or not the modification has taken place in the UK or releases have occurred elsewhere in the EC or the world. To comply with EC law some such consents would have to be automatic where permission has already been given in another member state with similar geography, but would nevertheless entail a formal agreement of the UK Government prior to release. An assurance that the UK competent authority would consult ACRE and possibly ACGM before consenting to a request from another member state to agree a release would be helpful.
The provision of a consent should involve ACRE examining the information provided by those intending such a release and then making a recommendation to Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: A fundamental premise of the structure of Part VI of the Bill is that it should be

1973
able to accommodate different types of GMO which present varying degrees of risk to the environment. The structure therefore provides a hierarchy of controls—risk assessment, notification and consent—which seeks to match the level of scrutiny required with the degree of risk presented. The Government strongly believe that that flexible approach is in the best interests of environmental safety and the biotechnology industry. It reflects the approach already adopted in the human safety field as well as the philosophy of the EC directives.
In practice many releases are likely to be among the most risky GMO activities and to require consent. However, we cannot see any advantage in seeking to build into the Bill the rigid assumption of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the risk of all releases will be such as to require them to be subject to consent. Some releases are likely to be of low risk, for example, GMOs released into waste streams from contained manufacturing processes. Other releases may be seen to be acceptably safe in future as knowledge and techniques progress.
A provision for general consents, as sought by Amendment No. 332N, would achieve nothing that is not already achieved by the scope of the exemptions which can be prescribed under subsections (7) and (11) of Clause 105. The approach adopted allows us to respond to those various situations in a responsible and considered manner. It is for those reasons that I hope that I have succeeded in persuading the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: I should like to speak to the amendment. I speak with some considerable concern. The Royal Commission spent a great deal of time discussing with a great many people their concern over this particular aspect. I understand that the process of sending such matters to the appropriate committee and seeking its opinion before release could be time-consuming. However, I do not believe that that need be the case. It is perfectly reasonable for the appropriate committee to deal with the matter very expeditiously.
However, I believe that the effect on the public at large is of tremendous importance. If what is assumed to be a simple, non-harmful, genetically-engineered organism is subsequently discovered to be dangerous and has not been considered by the committee it could be a recipe for disaster in the future.
At this stage we are in a very delicate situation in relation to the public at large. That is a point to which I keep returning. The public are worried about such organisms. I do not believe that they have any need to worry if we go through the procedure that has been laid down in the Bill, but I am concerned that blanket releases may be authorised for certain types of organism.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has done his best but his reply was disappointing. He made much of the varying levels of risk that could be attached to the release of GMOs. One of the releases that he said would be considered less risky than
1974
others was emission into waste streams. Can the Minister tell the Committee why releases into waste streams are viewed as less dangerous than other forms of release? The Minister pointed out that some are more dangerous than others. However, we should like to know what are the criteria which determine what is potentially dangerous. We believe that the procedure that we propose, tiresome and time-consuming as it may turn out to be, is nevertheless the safest. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the point that I have just raised.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may turn first to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis. The provisions of Part VI, in allowing for a hierarchy of controls, are intended to apply for a long period and to cover a wide range of operations involving GMOs. The need is for a structure in the enabling legislation which would allow appropriately rigorous levels of control, risk assessment, notification or consent to be applied depending on the circumstances of the time. The degree of scrutiny appropriate to particular GMO proposals is mainly a matter for regulations, and in drafting those we shall take into account the views of the Royal Commission and others. The ACRE will also advise on that aspect.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I have already said that we strongly believe that the flexible approach is in the best interests of environmental safety and also the biotechnology industry. I can tell him that many contained uses are of GLISP organisms which, as already pointed out, are considered not to pose a significant threat to the environment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am genuinely not competent to argue the case; but there are others who are and they have spoken in this debate on this and other aspects of the matter. I spoke on the premise that the Minister is well advised and the integrity of that advice is not in question. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said earlier, the Minister must give peace of mind to the public. The public become very concerned when they believe that what the Minister calls a flexible approach might mean that there will be less rigour applied to some situations than to others for no reason other than that it is more costly, time-consuming, wearisome or whatever to do the job properly.
All I can do this evening is take away this amendment, consider what the Minister said, and perhaps come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 331E not moved.]
8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 331F:
Page 109, line 41, leave out from first ("or) to ("any") in line 42.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 331G, 331K, 331L and 332B. These are all drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 331G:
Page 109, line 42, leave out ("may be") and insert ("are").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 331H not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): If the next amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 331K due to pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 331J not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 331K:
Page 109, line 45, after ("release") insert ("or market").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 331L:
Page 110, line 10, leave out ("may be") and insert ("are").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 331M:
Page 110, line 40, at end insert:
("(8A) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of facilitating the effective implementation of this section issue a Code of Guidance covering matters to which it relates.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 332C. These amendments deal with the code of practice relating to Clause 102 (risk assessment) and Clause 103 (general duties).
The purpose of the amendments is to probe the Government's intentions. I hope that the Minister will say something helpful to those who are interested in this matter.
In the case of these amendments, it is the Secretary of State rather than the advisory committee who would form the source of codes of practice. The amendments seek to learn the Government's intentions on these issues. It is envisaged that the advisory committee would have a substantial role in advising the Secretary of State on drawing up any such code.
The basic purpose is to enable the maximum degree of clarity to be achieved from the point of view of users of GMOs in the form of non-legislative guidance which could back up regulations and an evolving pattern of consents. A number of government departments are likely to be involved. The value of the guidance would be to establish so far as is possible common methods of working. That is the basis of the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 331M would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to issue a code of guidance in connection with the risk assessment and notification requirements of Clause 102. Amendment No. 332C requires the Secretary of State to develop a code of guidance in connection with the general duty requirements of Clause 103.
I can appreciate that the success of Part VI in controlling the risks to environmental safety presented by GMOs will to a large extent depend on the quality of that guidance available to those involved in the biotechnology industry. One of the
1976
roles of ACRE will be to develop guidance on good practice, for example on the handling and containment of GMOs. However, the risk assessment, notification and general duty requirements are plainly stated on the face of the Bill, with adequate provision for the details of those requirements to be spelt out in regulations. We do not believe that a statutory requirement for codes of guidance would add anything that we do not already have in the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am prepared to take the Minister's word that the Bill already contains what the amendment seeks to achieve. However, as he knows, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other bodies feel that it would be helpful to have the code of guidance referred to in Amendments Nos. 331M and 332C written on the face of the Bill.
We are in the hands of the Minister who will have to carry responsibility in the future if anything goes wrong which might have been obviated had there been clearer guidance and practice. Those are responsibilities that the Government have to take. It is our responsibility to raise the issues, probe the intentions and place on record what we believe to be the best way forward. I do not dispute the Minister's observation that there is no need for this amendment. He recognises that guidance is required; but, as I understand it, that is already provided in some other form in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 331N:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause:
("Public Registers on use of genetically modified organisms
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish as soon as practicable and to maintain public registers containing prescribed particulars of—

(a) any notification of a use of a genetically modified organism under section 102(1) above;

(b) any application for a consent made under section 105 below, and any such consents together with any conditions at any time included in such consents under section 106 below;

(c) any direction issued under section 102(8) above;

(d) any notice issued under section 104(1) below;

(e) any notice issued under section 105(6) below;

(f) any notices issued under section 105(10) below;

(g) any conviction of a person for any offence under section 112 below;

(h) the information on the basis of which the Secretary of State has granted any consent, including any advice or recommendations made by any advisory committee; and

(i) information received in pursuance of the conditions of consents granted by the Secretary of State; and

(j) such other information as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State shall make appropriate arrangements to secure public access to the information contained in any register.
(3) The requirements of this section shall be subject to any determination of commercial confidentiality or national security by the Secretary of State and information may, for this purpose, be regarded as commercially confidential if its being contained in the register would prejudice to an unreasonable

1977
degree the commercial interests of a person, subject to the requirements of any current Directive of the European Community.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. It is a new clause which goes into some detail.
In essence, the amendment specifies information which should be put on registers for public examination. The categories are parallel to those for the registers set up under the IPC part of the Bill together with some additional categories recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
During the Commons Committee discussions of the Bill, the Minister in a letter to Members of the Committee announced an intention to set up registers of information but denied the need to write access to information on to the face of the Bill. The letter a1so stated:
"There will be occasions when great care will be needed in placing information on the register",
and went on:
"The right approach … is for the Secretary of State to proceed from a presumption in favour of releasing information, while recognising the need judiciously to limit the information as circumstances indicate".
That kind of assurance does not give adequate guarantees on public access of information as it implies that much can be left to ministerial discretion. We want to see a requirement on the Secretary of State to establish registers written into the primary legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: With reference to the groupings, Amendment No. 336 touches on a different topic altogether. Therefore, I withdraw it from the groupings list. I shall speak to Amendment No. 338.
In Part VI of the Bill, no provision is made for public access to information about the release of GMOs. I believe that the Government consider that they already have adequate powers for that. However, Amendment No. 338, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Nathan and myself, is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State provides public access not just to information about the decision that he has taken but also the information on the basis of which the decision has been taken.
That provision leads directly from a recommendation of the Royal Commission. Recommendation 12.30 states:
"The legislation should empower the licensing authorities to allow public access to the information on the basis of which the Release Committee has made its recommendation. It should also enable them, if they considered it appropriate before allowing access, to invite the applicant to comment on the request for information and to take account of the applicant's views on commercial confidentiality".
It is important to recognise that there could be a problem with regard to commercial confidentiality although I believe that with the technique of genetic engineering one is concerned more with the method of intrusion of the gene, rather than the gene itself and where it is. It is an important feature that may be missed in some of the general considerations.
1978
However, because genetic engineering is a new science, there is a natural apprehension about it. It is a point that we have laboured on a number of occasions. I am reminded of my predecessor's phrase in a Royal Commission report which stated that secrecy fuels fear. I am sure that that is an important point that we must make absolutely clear. Public access to information such as the environmental risk assessment will help to allay that.
I hope that the Government will agree to provide information which goes beyond that normally contained in public registers.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: I should like to support what the noble Lord has said. It is important to instil confidence with regard to public information. As has already been stated, ignorance is a great breeder of fear.
In this new field of scientific endeavour, we are dealing with matters about which no one is 100 per cent. sure because they are new and developing areas. Surely the public have a right to know what is going on. To have such a provision written on the face of the Bill would be a step forward.
Lord Nathan: Perhaps I may supplement what the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said about information. There are two factors which drive one towards the necessity for the provision to the public (and I shall return to what I mean by that in a moment) of the maximum information about what has been released; and the grounds upon which that decision has been made which may go beyond what may be necessary in other contexts, in particular dealing with the chemical field.
So far there has been a certain distrust but no obvious indications of direct opposition to the development of genetic engineering on a wide scale. The advantages are enormous and they are widely recognised. On the other hand, there is very widespread concern about many factors with regard to the technique. They range from a general concern about interfering with the operations of nature and so forth—what has sometimes been called the Frankenstein syndrome—and the normal concerns about experiments and products produced by these completely novel techniques.
Certain leaders in the industries concerned have confirmed that if there is not the information, and not the public confidence, there is a great danger that the whole project of genetic engineering on a commercial scale may be frustrated by public opposition motivated by fear of the unknown. If one has such a reaction from the public, the whole industry will come to a stop. That is something that most of us would deeply regret. Information availability is crucial to ensure that the whole process can continue.
It is quite clear—it is inherent in the Government's proposals—that after a release there will be careful monitoring of the effect of the release. That is clearly essential. Monitoring of the effects of a release is not necessarily contained within the 200 square yards within which the release has taken place. It might be required over a very substantial

1979
area. We have in the Chamber a remarkable number of people who are engaged in such bodies as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other nature conservancy activities. They know much about the conservation of nature and will be available to detect whether something peculiar is going on. They will be able to be brought into the monitoring system.
If the public do not know what has been released, it is extremely difficult to monitor the effect. Unless one knows what one may be looking for it is very unlikely that one will find what one seeks.
Those are two reasons why I believe that wide dissemination of information is crucial to the success of the project. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments seek in various ways to make provision on the face of the Bill for the recording and availability of information about GMO operations. Amendment No. 331N imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to establish public registers of information on GMOs containing particulars of matters covered by Part VI. Amendment No. 338 requires public access to background information about release consents.
Perhaps I may make absolutely clear that the Government are as committed to allowing access to information about Part VI matters as they are to information about matters connected with any other part of the Bill. The precise nature of this commitment was set out by the Minister in a letter dated 1st March to the chairman of the Standing Committee which considered this Bill in another place.
We have already undertaken to set up public registers of information obtained under Part VI. The registers will give details of notifications made and consents granted. They will contain information on, for example, the nature of the GMO involved in a particular operation, the location of the operation and any foreseeable effects on the environment. In addition, information on such matters as prohibition notices issued, inspections made, convictions for offences committed, and so on, will also be provided.
We intend there to be a general presumption in favour of releasing information, with certain exceptions, whose good sense I hope that noble Lords will acknowledge. For example, certain deliberate releases of GMOs will often be for R&D trials and will be proposed for the express purpose of obtaining information for ongoing development of a potential product. In other cases, the risks may not be of a commercial interest as such but to the environment itself through wilful and perhaps malicious interference with, for example, release test sites. Reasonable exceptions to provide protection in such cases will be made to the information made available.
In addition to these very specific commitments on the release of information, noble Lords will be aware that Clause 105(4) makes provision for applications for consent to be advertised. In the light of these various points there is strictly no need for other
1980
reference to public access to information on the face of the Bill, in particular because the Secretary of State already has powers to disclose information on matters for which he is responsible. However, I can see that certain features of the amendment would bring Part VI into line with the information powers in the rest of the Bill and I will consider further whether some kind of statutory register of Part VI information would be appropriate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is the best offer we are going to get tonight. I have looked at my supporters and they have nodded their heads. In the circumstances we are prepared to accept the explanation; it is a step in the right direction. I listened carefully and noted that much of what the Minister said is contained in Amendment No. 331N. By inference he made copious references to Amendments Nos. 336 and 338. It would be pointless to try to make points because the Minister has indicated that amendments will appear before us at a later stage. I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 331P not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 331Q:
Page 111, line 13, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with persons involved in the acquisition, keeping, importation, or release of genetically modified organisms, develop Codes of Practice and Guidance and where appropriate, Regulations, for the acquisition, keeping, importation and release of such organisms, and such Codes, guidance or regulations shall specify the levels of containment necessary for the degree of risk associated with particular organisms.").
The noble Lord said: This is my cue. Clause 103(3), paragraphs (b) and (c), may be seen to be contradictory. They provide that if there is any undefined risk to the environment the person shall cease to keep the organism. The provision is too wide because there will always be a risk to the environment. The amendment attempts to require the Secretary of State to consult on the formulation of guidance and codes of practice as in the Health and Safety at Work Act. They will assist with the assignment of levels of containment necessary to minimise risk of escape into the environment and allow the specification of the containment necessary to retain the organisms within acceptable risk levels. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: As was said in relation to a previous group of amendments, a statutory requirement for codes of guidance or practice would add nothing to what already appears on the face of the Bill. Similarly, the qualifications to Clause 103 suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would not change what we already have. Whether risks are containable is a matter for judgment which can be interpreted only by the courts, and the noble Lord's additional words would not change that. For that reason I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 331R:
Page 111, line 23, leave out ("a") and insert ("an unreasonable").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 332E. I move it in the same spirit as I supported an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Nathan and another amendment tabled by another Member of the Committee—I am afraid that I cannot remember who. All three of us were an example of Homer nodding because the matter was dealt with on the next page of the Bill. However, I hope that the fate will not overtake these amendments.
The amendments are intended to provide the courts with a viable Act which can be interpreted by the use of common sense and good judgment. There is no doubt that we live surrounded by risks. Some of them we can identify but others await identification and we know nothing of them. When identified it often transpires that the risks as they emerge are greater than others we were getting into a tizzy about earlier. We would have done better to try to concentrate on identifying them.
The amendment alters the wording slightly so as to provide for "an unreasonable" risk and "an unacceptable" risk. It is left open for those who interpret the Act to exercise good judgment in listening to evidence. If a risk is left unqualified there is a permanent ban on anything that can be identified as a risk, however small. Therefore the amendment is an improvement in draftmanship.
As was said by my noble friends Lord Nathan and Lord Lewis, there is a danger in alarming the public unduly. One must remember that the media are permanently in a conspiracy to get the public into a state of neurotic anxiety. It is quite unnecessary. Nature is always producing attack and counter-attack. I attack the lawn; I rip up the turf and plant a rose bed. The difference between the turf and the rose bed is purely subjective from the standpoint of preference. Nature proceeds to counter-attack by launching an avalanche of greenfly on to my roses. Being wise in my generation I perform various tricks to encourage the breeding of ladybirds which will eat the greenfly. Life is a pyramid based on death and we are at its apex.
There are many advantages in some of the newly-engineered organisms but they contain an element of risk. The balance of advantage over risk calls for very nice judgment. We ought not to make that nice judgment impossible by putting an unqualified ban on whatever may contain an aspect of risk as we move into the future. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: We agree that efforts to prevent damage to the environment should concentrate on GMOs, which present real rather than trivial risks and we can see that the noble Earl's amendments seek to point up the distinction between real and trivial risks. However, I do not consider that the qualifications proposed would help us in determining the acceptability of the degree of risk presented by particular GMOs. Whether risks are unreasonable or unacceptable is a matter of judgment based on the facts of individual cases. The
1982
terms "unreasonable" and "unacceptable" would not provide meaningful guidance as to their interpretation. Any risk of damage to the environment should be taken into account. The need is to eliminate the risk to the point where it becomes too trivial to warrant further action. The noble Earl's words would not get round the need to weigh up and assess the risks before taking any action in connection with GMOs. For those reasons I ask him not to press his amendments.
The Earl of Halsbury: I shall not divide the Committee at this hour but I found that a disappointing reaction. I was trying to mobilise the characteristic of intelligence which is said to distinguish man from the brute but alas so rarely does. I sought to mobilise it so that it is brought to bear on the construction of an Act of Parliament which comes before the courts, which should decide other than by pure reflex action. Of course the noble Earl is right in saying that the construction which I propose calls for interpretation, intelligence and in the summoning of evidence as to how the risk should be quantified. However, the Bill puts a ban on any act of judgment and I find that totally unacceptable.
Since the hour is late and since the noble Earl is not in a yielding mood, I must reserve my position until Report. In the interim I hope to convince him that I am not talking nonsense and that it is a worthy amendment which will improve the quality of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3315 to 331Y not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 112" line 8, after ("cost") insert ("in view of known present and possible future dangers").
The noble Lord said: I was unable to move my Amendment No. 83, which deals with exactly the same point. If this amendment is agreed to, I shall move formally Amendment No. 83 on Report.
When I read this Bill I was perplexed about the meaning of "excessive cost". There was no help in the Bill and when I read the Second Reading debate I realised that I was not alone in that. At col. 490 the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, worried that the Minister's practice note could be interpreted as putting cost above environmental protection. Later he said that it could be subject to misinterpretation. At col. 510 the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in his maiden speech, asked what criteria we should consider in deciding the question of excessive cost. At col. 542 the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, observed:
"I have yet to hear anyone explain what 'excessive cost' means".
At col. 578, in reply, the Minister referred to the interpretion paper deposited in the Library, which he said, light-heartedly, "will allay many fears". Should this Bill give rise to fears which can only be allayed by reading a separate paper?
What did the Minister say about excessive costs? Page 3 of the paper states:
"If, for instance, there is one technology which reduces the emission of a polluting substance by 90 per cent. and another

1983
which reduces the emission by 95 per cent. but at four times the cost, it may be the proper judgment to hold that because of the small benefit and the great cost the second technology would entail excessive cost. If the emissions were particularly dangerous, on the other hand, it [might] be proper to judge that the additional cost was not excessive".
On what criteria are "excessive" to be judged and by whom? Turning to page 1 of the Minister's paper, he states:
"In the last resort the courts could overturn a decision if it was manifestly unreasonable".
Every Member of this Committee knows that what the Minister says in interpreting a clause in a Bill as recorded in Hansard is not the law of the land, nor is the Minister's paper in the Library. The Minister and his staff have access to the paper in order to intepret "excessive". However, can we be assured that the courts will have a copy of the paper? Are the courts not entitled to rely on what is in the Bill? We are agitating about practices which may involve great and unknown dangers for the nation and posterity. There may, and possibly will, be differences between scientists. For the court to give an opinion it has to be established that the technique used will protect us from all known and possible future dangers. Should that not be in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord McNair: I should like to support everything which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said. I thank him for referring so kindly to my maiden speech and I support the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 332 makes a qualification to the requirement for those releasing GMOs to use BATNEEC to prevent damage to the environment. The qualification proposed—that BATNEEC should be applied:
"in view of known present and possible future dangers"—
is not unnecessary. It is unnecessary because BATNEEC already embraces the notion that circumstances may change. It means that those releasing GMOs are constantly to review the risks of damage to the environment and to take appropriate action. The noble Lord's qualifying phrase is therefore redundant because this process will always involve having an eye both on present and on possible future dangers.
The phrase is not satisfactory because it implies a weakening of the BATNEEC requirement. BATNEEC provides a necessary long-stop against the risk of damage to the environment remaining undetected by the consent and notification system. I can understand that there may be some anxiety about its meaning in particular cases. I can assure operators, and the Committee, that expert guidance on good practice, on which the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment will advise, will be provided in an easily-updated form. A further safeguard is contained in Clause 106, which provides a procedure for the resolution of conflict between consent conditions and BATNEEC.
When my noble friend referred to page 3 of the document in the Library, I thought that the words he used were a rather admirable explanation of how
1984
one can solve a difficult problem. Cost is not put above environmental protection. Cost has to be weighed against the protection for the environment and the ability of the person to pay for protection. That has also to be taken into account.
In answer to the question posed by my noble friend, at the end of the day the ultimate arbiter will be the courts. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Craigton: Before the Minister sits down, is he intending to allow the courts to have a copy of his paper or is he relying on what he said? It worries me that the courts have no guidance if it is not written upon the face of the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: It is virtually impossible to put everything on the face of the Bill. We should finish up with a Bill of impossible length.
Lord Craigton: I shall use the well-known phrase that I shall read carefully what the Minister said and consider whether to return to this matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 332A not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 332B:
Page 112, line 15, leave out ("or to release") and insert ("to release or to market").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 332C not moved.]
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104 [Prohibition notices]:
[Amendments No. 332D and 332E not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 332F:
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause:
("The Genetic Modification Commission
.—(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Genetic Modification Commission (in this Part referred to as "the Commission") to perform the functions assigned to it by or under this Part.
(2) The members of the Commission, of whom there shall be not less than eight, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with such organisations as they consider appropriate.
(3) The Commission shall give to the Secretary of State advice on matters relating to the execution of this Part of the Act or the exercise of any power conferred by it, or otherwise relating to genetic modification, where either the Commission consider it expedient, or they are requested by the Secretary of State to do so.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 332F is an important amendment and makes good a serious omission from the Bill. While we on these Benches welcome the setting up of committees to cover the environmental and safety implications of notifications and consents, we strongly believe that there is also a need for a genetic modification commission. This body would consider longer term questions rather than ad hoc situations because there are considerable long-term economic, social and ethical issues raised by genetic modification. Such a commission would also have a remit to consider all aspects of GMOs, from broad ethical questions to

1985
those of a detailed technical nature, and should not be confined to considerations of ethics alone.
The proposal is modelled on that in Section 2 of the Medicines Act 1968, which seems to us to have sufficiently broad terms of reference. The membership of the commission should reflect different kinds of expertise, including scientific, technical and employee interests, although these should perhaps not be listed in the terms of reference in the interests of future flexibility. The terms of reference should express the commitment in general terms.
Members of the commission, who would be appointed by the Secretary of State, could be nominated by interest groups but should not be mandated by them so that individual members are not tied to a particular stance on any issue. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise because the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey is on the amendment. The basic points have been covered very well by the noble Lord, Lord McNair.
The amendment gives dignity and status, which in turn will earn respect from those from whom respect should come, for what is being done in this field. The logistics of the provision could be improved or amended. The Minister and his advisers are aware that the genesis for the genetics modification commission comes from the recommendation for the setting up of the Medicines Commission. That seemed to us to have sufficiently broad germs of reference to be helpful.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, points out, it will provide a synthesis for bringing together various kinds of expertise—scientific and technical—public policy, community and employee interests and a great deal more. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: The general responsibilities of this proposed commission are very widely expressed, while its particular purposes, as described in the noble Lord's amendment, are already served by other means. The Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (ACGM), set up under the Health and Safety Commission's powers under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, exists to advise on general questions of genetic modification. So far as releases to the environment are concerned, the Secretary of State will be advised by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), whose membership was announced by the Minister in another place on 27th April.
The noble Lord's amendment would add nothing to the roles already carried out by ACGM and ACRE. It is for that reason that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord McNair: Obviously I am disappointed by the reply of the Minister, but I shall consider his comments and reserve the right to bring the matter forward at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 332G:
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause:
("Liability
.Any person to whom section 102 applies shall be liable for the damage and injury to the environment caused by any organism to which this Part applies to which his duties under that section relate, irrespective of fault on his part.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 332G standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey I shall speak also to Amendment No. 340ZA. These amendments deal with strict liability, and the Minister's advisers may see that they approach the issue from a different angle. They could be looked upon as alternatives. The first is modelled on wording from the draft EC directive on civil liability for damage caused by waste.
The imposition of a duty of care and strict liability for damage to the environment are areas of concern. The Royal Commission has expressed concern that civil liability in relation to GMOs is not adequately catered for. There is concern that traditional liability law, which covers damage to persons and property, would not adequately cater for the environment where it is in common ownership. The draft EC directive, from which the first formulation was drawn, seeks to establish strict liability for damage to the environment and gives both public authorities and common interest groups the right to take action.
This is a probing amendment, as are many that have been moved from this side today. We are anxious to obtain the Government's views of the matter. Perhaps I could remind the Minister that the Royal Commission, in paragraph 8.19, supported strict liability where any person released a GMO without the necessary consents. A number of observers take the view that this foundation is too cautious, leading to complex moral issues thrown up by Clause 106(5)(c), where the concept of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC), which already sits awkwardly in Parts I and II of the Bill, is applied to the possible release of GMOs. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Part VI, in common with other parts of the Bill, makes no special provision regarding civil liability for damage to the environment. Its purpose is to set up a statutory scheme for the regulation of activities involving genetically modified organisms. This scheme is enforced by a system of criminal offences, with stiff penalties which include fines of up to £20,000 on summary conviction and unlimited fines for some offences on conviction on indictment.
In addition to the criminal penalties which can be imposed, Clauses 114 and 115 provide that, where an offence has been committed, the offender can be ordered by the court to take steps to remedy the matters in respect of which he has been convicted and he can be required to cover the costs of remedying the harm caused. These provisions flow from the provisions regarding criminal offences and are entirely appropriate to the provisions of Part VI.

1987
The statutory scheme set up on Part VI is quite separate from questions of civil liability. There already exist provisions regarding civil liability which will apply to genetically modified organisms and they include the strict liability which is sought to be imposed by Amendments Nos. 332G and 340ZA. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things, without proof of negligence, was held to exist. The judge in that case (Judge Blackburn) said:
"We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape".
Even though that was written in 1866, it would appear to be entirely apt to deal with genetically modified organisms.
If it is said that there are exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, this is true. The rule applies only where the dangerous things escape from land. But the rules as to occupiers' liability will apply where they have not escaped and the damage occurs on the land on which the GMOs are kept; and the rule of strict liability applies only where there is some special use bringing with it increased danger. But where there is no such danger there can be no reason for imposing liability where it would not otherwise exist. I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in explaining why the provisions of the amendment are not necessary in the context of the Bill. I shall read carefully what he has said and may come back later. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 332H to 332K not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 332L:
Page 113, line 37, at end insert:
("(4A) In prescribing the level of information and manner of advertisement required for the purposes of subsection (4) above, the Secretary of State shall secure that—

(a) sufficient information is available in the advertisement to enable any person to make any objection, and in particular he shall ensure that, notwithstanding any considerations of commercial confidentiality, information at a level not less than that required in any relevant Directive of the European Community shall be prescribed;

(b) any advertisement of an intention to release a genetically modified organism shall contain a description of the organism, name and address of the notifier, purpose of release and location of release; and

(c) notice shall be published as soon as practicable in the London Gazette or, as the case may be, in the Edinburgh Gazette.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 332M. These amendments deal with advertisements. The purpose is to specify minimum levels of information in advertisements concerning applications for consent and to require their placement with a single source.
Clause 105(4) contains a requirement for an advertisement regarding application for consent. It
1988
was explained in Committee in the Commons that it is intended that this should happen before consideration of the application by ACRE and will allow the committee to consider representations by those concerned when the application is made. However, what right would those seeing the advertisement have to information which would allow them to produce a reasoned objection to the application? The opportunity to comment is part of a specific recommendation by the Royal Commission, in its report, paragraph 8.27. The amendment specifies minimum levels of information in advertisements and that there is a single form for advertisements, not merely notifications in local papers.
The minimum level of information specified by EC directives includes, as mentioned earlier, the nature of the organism, the place of release, the name and address of those intending the release, and so on. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 332L would be to require the Secretary of State to ensure that advertisements in relation to consents included sufficient information to enable an objection to be made and that they complied with the information requirements of the EC GMO directives. It would also require a certain minimum amount of information to be included and advertisements to be published in the London Gazette or Edinburgh Gazette. In some ways this reminds me of a similar amendment last year in respect of the Water Bill.
The amendment is unnecessary because Clause 105(4) already provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe the information and advertisement requirements which will be necessary to his consideration of consent applications. The UK has an obligation to implement the EC GMO directives by September 1991 and the information and other requirements of those directives in respect of environmental safety will be implemented through regulations under Part VI. The information requirements of the directives conform with the substance of the noble Lord's amendments. Since we already have an obligation, in effect, to do what he wants as well as the means to do it, his amendment is unnecessary.
The effect of Amendment No. 332M would be to make provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe for the exemption from the consent requirements of certain kinds of organisms or types of organisms. I can appreciate the reasoning behind this amendment. The risks associated with certain kinds of releases might be such that it would not be necessary to apply the full-blown consent procedures to them. Certain kinds of innocuous waste-streams arising from some contained industrial GMO processes may well fall into this category. However, it is the person using the GMO who will be responsible for its effects. I think the wording of Clause 105(7) and (11), which contain the provisions for the Secretary of State to make exemptions, better reflects that idea as it stands. That is why we resist Amendment No. 332M.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I perceive that the Minister and his advisers appreciate what I seek to

1989
achieve with these amendments. Although the noble Lord did not use the words "sympathy", "understand" or "appreciate" I believe that he was sympathetic and that he understood and appreciated what we are seeking to do. When we read what he said I believe there will be a great measure of satisfaction throughout the Committee in respect of the point that we have sought to make. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Amendments Nos. 332M and 332N not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 332P:
Page 114, line 14, leave out from ("the") to ("holder") in line 15.
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lewis of Newnham Lord Lewis of Newnham moved Amendment No. 333:
After Clause 105, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to send copies of advisory committees' recommendations to interested parties
. —(1) The Secretary of State shall send, to a person who has applied under section 105 above for a consent and to any person who has made a representation to him in respect of the application, a copy of any recommendation from an advisory committee on the basis of which he is considering the application.
(2) The Secretary of state shall take account of any representation received as a result of the information supplied under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Nathan. I begin by apologising. Our drafting has been so subtle that we seem to have missed the point. The clause heading in the margin reads;
"Duty to send copies of advisory committees' recommendations to interested parties".
That is the beginning rather than the end of the story. What we are really seeking to raise is the fact that the Bill makes no provision for an appeal against the Secretary of State's decision on an application for consent to release a GMO.
Since there is no appropriate higher authority to consider appeals, the amendment proposes to allow the Secretary of State to take his decision but, before doing so, that applicant or anyone who made representation should see the recommendations that the Secretary of State received from his advisory committee. That would give an opportunity to challenge the recommendation and would be a substitute for an appeal system. This proposal was made by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in its 13th report. The point was simply that it was generally felt that some form of appeal system was required but that we could not see our way to implement it in any direct sense. Therefore, the proposals in the amendment seem to provide a mechanism whereby we could essentially have an appeal system in operation de facto if not de jure. The amendment touches on a number of other proposed amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Amendment No. 333 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to send copies of the advisory committee's recommendations on consents to the consent applicant and persons who have made representations on the application.
The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) is charged with advising the Secretary of State on the environmental aspects of consent applications. The membership of ACRE has been announced and we believe the Committee will agree that the skills of the members are comprehensive and very wide ranging. We have every confidence that its advice to the Secretary of State will be of the highest quality. At the end of day, decisions taken in respect of applications are for the Secretary of State alone. It would be inappropriate—as well as confusing—for other parties to prolong the debate after he has been advised by ACRE.
As a background to all of this, there can be no question but that the Secretary of State will have sufficiently wide powers under Clause 105 to obtain all the relevant information he needs to consider applications properly. This includes information obtained from other parties as the result of advertising and specific notification as well as information from applicants. In practice, ACRE will work closely with applicants and other interested parties in developing recommendations. This will include, for example, inviting applicants to committee meetings to answer questions about proposals.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, will accept that the Secretary of State will make decisions about consents on a well-informed basis and that it would be inappropriate to make the system more elaborate. For those reasons I hope he will not press his amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord, Lord Lewis, has made a reasonable and positive case for his amendment. I have to say with some sadness that Ministers keep falling back onto the powers given to the Secretary of State and what he can do. We know from the past few years, and even longer ago that successive Secretaries of State have not been models of consistency. Their approach to subjects can often differ depending on personality. I do not want to go into detail at this hour of the night about Ministers who have been removed from office for various causes or non-causes by the present Prime Minister.
It is not good enough to say that because the Secretary of State is given certain powers and responsibilities it follows that that is the answer and that, in the wider concept, people will obtain the information. As a layman looking at the origin of this amendment, it has not been put forward by people with a political axe to grind. The amendment has been tabled by those with expertise in the subject transcending the knowledge of any Secretary of State who usually falls back for advice given in the main by his civil servants. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, intends to do about the amendment, but it is worthy of far more consideration by the Minister than it has been given hitherto.
9 p.m.
Lord Nathan: This amendment has a certain relationship to the question of public information. The issue of information available to the public sounds innocent. It would be true if it were limited to the ordinary person such as me expressing views on particular GMOs and their consequences. That would carry no weight at all.
That point about the availability of public information is not only that the public at large should have it, but that they can also appoint experts in the field who will advise them how matters should be dealt with. One can imagine that a public interest group might engage an eminent scientist to look into a particular application for the release of a GMO. It is entirely sensible that that should happen and that the people appointing him, or the person himself, should be able to make representations to the Secretary of State concerning a decision shortly to be made by him so that the representative may inform the Secretary of State of his views.
That is a way in which the right of appeal on the technical aspects can be dealt with. The difficulty one has in establishing a right of appeal is that if one is vesting the Secretary of State with the power, it is not practical to have an appeal in the ordinary sense of the word. This provision is a substitute for that, and it is an appropriate method of dealing with the problem.
Lord Monkswell: I support this amendment. There are two points to be made. It seems that we have here a very elegant mechanism to provide the Secretary of State with a second bite of the cherry; namely, an opportunity to look at the matters twice. When one considers the position of this Chamber, that is exactly what Parliament provides for the Government—that is to say, the opportunity to have two bites of the cherry; one in the other place, and one here. There is a considerable precedent for that.
The other matter is the practical implications. We are talking about a very new field of knowledge. We must proceed very carefully as that field of knowledge develops. I shall give one example of another field of new knowledge where it appears that a mistake was made in the development of wave power. A group of experts analysed the economics of wave power and produced an answer which, some years later, was demonstrated to be erroneous.
I am sure that if the mechanism suggested by this amendment had been available then, and there had been an opportunity for public scrutiny of the recommendations made to the Secretary of State and for further responses to be made, that error might have been picked up many years ago. For those reasons, I also support this amendment.
Baroness White: We should take this matter seriously. This amendment may not be the best way of dealing with it. If I am correct in my supposition, as things stand there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to explain to anyone the basis on which he may reach a perfectly valid conclusion. It is possible that it may not be an entirely satisfactory conclusion. However, a Secretary of State is under no obligation
1992
to explain why he has reached a certain conclusion. I assume that he gives his decision on the application that has been made to him.
In this rapidly-developing field there are so many uncertainties. There may be an advantage in making the reasons apparent—one might use the word "transparent" which is so popular in Brussels—so that one has some idea what led the Secretary of State to reach a conclusion. We should think a little more about this matter; namely, in what way members of the public and the scientists concerned are to know of the mental process which led the Secretary of State to come to his conclusion. To achieve that there must be some provision for the applicant to publish, or make public use of, the reasons for the decision reached by the Secretary of State.
It is this situation which worries some of us who are not necessarily competent to judge the scientific basis of the Secretary of State's decision, but who would like to follow the reasoning at what I might call a New Scientist level.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that the advertisement proposals will ensure that any person can approach the Secretary of State and/or the person proposing the release. For the benefit of any Members of the Committee who were not here earlier this evening, we have already indicated that we shall be considering the position of registers.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, it is not as though the Secretary of State were acting in limbo. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has the responsibility of advising the Secretary of State about consent applications. It is an extremely well-informed and highly qualified body of people. We have every confidence, as I have said before that its advice to the Secretary of State will be of the very highest quality at all times.
Baroness White: That is not the point at issue. We are not denying for a moment that the advice may be admirable. One would expect the advice to be well-founded. The point is this: who will know what the advice was?
Lord Dean of Beswick: I hope that I am in order in rising at this time. My noble friend Lady White made the point that I was intending to make. My noble friend's previous point was a vital one. She said that the Secretary of State would make the final decision. As she and the Minister said, he has probably got the finest advice in the land, but from what the Minister says it almost puts the Secretary of State in an unchallengeable position. When he makes the decision, he may choose to discount the advice that he is given. It has not been unknown for Secretaries of State in a variety of matters to have flown in the face of advice. If the press reports are correct we have just had a perfect example of this in what happened to nuclear energy, when it appears that a Secretary of State totally discounted all the advice given by the experts in that field.

1993
I think that the Minister must change his stance a bit. If he says that the body that will be advising the Secretary of State will be composed of experts and that they will be marvellous people, perhaps the best in the world or the best in the land at their profession, I should not dispute that for one moment. But I dispute that it then leaves the Secretary of State in an unassailable position to take a decision that so far as I can see would even be difficult to challenge in the courts of the land.
That is a dangerous situation in an area where the frontiers of science are expanding. As a layman I think that it is a dangerous situation for us to be left in. The Government have to come across with something a bit better. They keep falling back on the fact that there will be expert advice analysed by the Secretary of State and he can then deliver his verdict. The matter will not be resolved tonight, but my view is that that is not good enough.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: I thank noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment. It clearly is a difficult point. I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister cannot see a way of applying this type of what I believe to be a gentle form of appeals system which would allow people at least to have faith and establish what they believe to be the actuality of the situation. However, I see on looking at the Marshalled List that we are to have yet other cases of appeal systems being brought forward, so if I may I should like to contemplate what has been said tonight and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106 [Consents: limitations and conditions]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 333ZA:
Page 114, line 25, at end insert ("; but no limitations or conditions shall be imposed for the purpose only of securing the health of persons at work (within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974).").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 333ZA. I have spoken to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 333ZB not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 333ZC to 333ZC:
Page 114, line 40, after ("informed") insert ("(by reference to the nature of the organisms and the manner in which he intends to keep them after their importation or acquisition)").
Page 114, line 41, leave out ("may be") and insert ("are").
Page 115, line 3, leave out ("may be") and insert ("are").
Page 115, line 15, after ("informed") insert ("(by reference to the nature of the organisms and the extent and manner of the release or marketing)").
Page 115, line 16, leave out ("may be") and insert ("are").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 333ZC, 333ZD, 333ZE, 333ZF and 333ZG, which are drafting amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 333ZH not moved.]
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 333A:
After Clause 106, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals against enforcing authority
.—(1) The following persons, namely—

(a) a person who has been refused the grant of a consent under section 105 above;

(b) a person who is aggrieved by the limitations and conditions attached, under any provisions of this Part, to his consent;

(c) a person whose consent has been revoked or varied under section 105 above;

may appeal against the decision of the enforcing authority to the Secretary of State.
(2) A person on whom a prohibition notice is served by the regulatory authority under section 104 may appeal against the notice to the Secretary of State.
(3) Where an appeal under this section is made to the Secretary of State—

(a) the Secretary of State may refer any matter involved in the appeal to a person appointed by him for the purpose; or

(b) the Secretary of State may, instead of determining the appeal himself, direct that the appeal or any matter involved in it shall be determined by a person appointed by him for the purposes;

and a person appointed under paragraph (b) above for the purpose of an appeal shall have the same powers under subsection (5), (6) or (7) below as the Secretary of State.
(4) An appeal under this section shall, if and to the extent required by regulations under subsection (10) below, be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under that subsection.
(5) If either party to the appeal so requests or the Secretary of State so decides, an appeal shall be or continue in the form of a hearing (which may, if the person hearing the appeal so decides, be held, or held to any extent, in private).
(6) On determining an appeal against a decision of an enforcing authority under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State—

(a) may affirm the decision;

(b) where the decision was a refusal to grant a consent, may direct the enforcing authority to grant a consent;

(c) where the decision was as to the conditions attached to a consent, may quash all or any of the conditions of the consent;

(d) where the decision was to revoke or vary a consent, may quash the decision;

and where he exercises any of the powers in paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) above, he may give directions as to the conditions to be attached to the consent.
(7) On the determination of an appeal under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State may either quash or affirm the notice and, if he affirms it, may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as he may in the circumstances think fit.
(8) Where an appeal is brought under subsection (1) above against the revocation of a consent, the revocation shall not take effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.
(9) Where an appeal is brought under subsection (2) above against a notice, the bringing of the appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the operation of the notice.
(10) Provision may be made by the Secretary of State by regulations with respect to appeals under this section and in particular—

(a) as to the period within which and the manner in which appeals are to be brought; and

(b) as to the manner in which appeals are to be considered.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 333 moved by the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Lewis, was so subtle, clever and gentle that as a professor

1995
of surgery I failed to appreciate that it was an appeals procedure. I should like to move Amendment No. 333A, which is a new clause option and which is extracted from Part I of the Bill,
"Integrated Pollution Control and Air Pollution Control by Local Authorities".
It attempts to provide an appeal mechanism for those who have been refused authorisation to work with GMOs, who are unhappy with the conditions attached to such authorisation or who receive a prohibition notice in relation to such work.
This is a mechanism for appealing to the Secretary of State against the decision of the enforcing authority. For that mechanism to work, it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to designate another body—the enforcing authority—for the purposes of exercising the functions conferred or imposed by that part, as one clearly cannot appeal to him against his own decisions. We suggest that it would be most appropriate if that designation were given to the new Advisory Committee on Release to the Environment which is being set up under the auspices of the Department of Environment and the Health and Safety Commission in order to advise on releases to the environment.
In the highly unlikely event that this amendment is not acceptable, I should like Amendment No. 333B to be considered. The new clause option would allow a formal right to make representation to the Secretary of State before an adverse decision is made. That alternative would obviate the need to delegate powers to a subordinate body.
For the development of sound and sensible legislation, it is right in principle to include some type of mechanism to allow those who have been turned down a chance to make an appeal. Such a mechanism already exists in Part I of the Bill and it would seem wise to have something similar introduced into Part VI. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: I wish to speak in favour of the appeal system. It was one of the features that we looked at on the Royal Commission. However, like the noble Lord, Lord McColl, we had great difficulty in trying to designate who the enforcing authority should be. The idea that it might be the release committee appeared attractive, but it was recognised that there might be important features other than the purely scientific impact of a particular approach. That was why we moved away from that type of solution to the problem.
However, I am in total sympathy, as must be evident from my previous comments, with some form of appeal system. There is an element of justice in the system. It must be seen that a person at least has an opportunity to express an alternative case or has a chance of contending the case against him.
The Earl of Arran: The amendments seek to establish an appeals system in respect of consents and other matters. Amendment No. 333A attempts to apply the Part I appeals provisions to Part VI. Unfortunately, it does not take account of one crucial difference between Parts I and VI. Decisions about authorisations under Part I are to be made by either
1996
the chief inspector or the local authority. Appeal to the Secretary of State is therefore right and appropriate. However, under Part VI the Secretary of State himself makes the decisions on consents and imposes limitations or conditions when they are granted. It is clearly impossible to appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision of the Secretary of State. Any such provision would result in the Secretary of State making a decision and then being required to consider his own decision on the basis of the same facts as his original decision. That is not logical.
The option of designating the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment as an "enforcing authority" against whose decisions an appeal could be made to the Secretary of State would also be inappropriate. Part VI attempts to deal with a relatively new and fast-developing technology. It is right that the Secretary of State should be responsible and accountable to Parliament for the implications for environmental safety. The advice that the Secretary of State will receive from ACRE will of course be of the highest quality, but it is right that the Secretary of State should be responsible and accountable to Parliament for the operation of Part VI.
Similar arguments apply to Amendment No. 333B—the second string of my noble friend's bow on appeals. At the end of the day, the Secretary of State is responsible for decisions under Part VI and applicants for consents will in any case have the opportunity to discuss their proposals with ACRE. I hope that I have persuaded my noble friend not to press his amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Historically, it has always been a fact of life in the United Kingdom that there must be some form of appeal in important matters. Although to laymen like myself these are new frontiers, surely there should be some appeal mechanism.
The Minister may well make a bona fide case by saying that it would be logical to appeal to a Secretary of State against his decision. However, in my view, it would also be logical to ask to whom an aggrieved person could go if he feels strongly that, despite the marvellous recommendations that the Minister received from the appropriate body, he has made an appalling blunder. Ministers of all political persuasions have been guilty of such errors in the past. Therefore, it is relevant to ask the Minister this question. If a person was so aggrieved that he thought the Secretary of State was completely wrong in the verdict he delivered, to whom would such a person address his appeal? Would that person have to go through the trauma of instigating private litigation through the courts on such a basis?
Baroness White: I think that we are back where we were a short time ago. We have reached the stage where an appeal from the Secretary of State to the Secretary of State does not make constitutional sense. However, I think that there should be a strong obligation on him to ensure that the decisions he makes and the reasons therefor are made manifest. The reason we believe that such matters should be

1997
made transparent is very much the same as the one we put forward in connection with Amendment No. 333. It did not appear to me then, and it does not appear to me now, that the Government have thought the matter through.
Lord Monkswell: I have a few reservations about the suggestion which has just been made by way of this amendment. I must admit that I prefer the earlier suggestion for a mechanism of appeal. By using the word "appeal", I wonder whether we are constraining our arguments too much. It is most important that we should consider the public interest. The Secretary of State must hold the public interest in the forefront of his considerations.
In this discussion we are endeavouring to find out what would be the best mechanism to protect the public interest. We should not aim solely to protect the developers of these organisms so as to enable them to appeal against their development, we should also consider the other side of the matter—namely, the public interest in placing adequate restrictions on their use and dissemination. Therefore, some form of appeal mechanism is needed to cover both sides of the issue.
We must be careful about the use of the word "appeal". It is most important that the Secretary of State should have available to him all strands of information and opinion regarding the situation. As I said, I prefer the earlier suggestion of a mechanism whereby extra information could be obtained effectively by publication after the recommendation of the learned group—I am not sure what its official title would be—to the Secretary of State. In those circumstances other people would have the opportunity to say, "Yes, we agree" or, "No, we do not agree". Such a provision would give the Secretary of State the ability to receive other strands of information. I take the point that on occasion it may not concern the scientific element; it may be that public awareness or other factors need to be taken into consideration in the wider human and political environment. For those reasons, I am not too happy with the amendment which has just been moved and I very much prefer the suggestion contained in the previous amendment.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is aware of the issue involved. There are many decisions taken by the Secretary of State against which there is no right of appeal. However, there is always the remedy of judicial review for an aggrieved person. That mechanism has been successfully used in many cases and it can give a speedy remedy.
In answer to the more general points which have been raised, I understand that there is a desire to ensure that the basis upon which decisions are made should be known and that the Secretary of State's reasons should also be known. The commitment that we have already given to look at the inclusion of a statutory provision for registers should give some reassurance about the availability of information at an early stage. The reasons for the
1998
Secretary of State's desires may also form part of the available information. The opportunity to make representations to the advisory committee is already given. I believe and hope that that explanation answers some of the points that Members have raised.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank my noble friend for his helpful response, and all those who have taken part in the debate. Having listened to all the arguments, I believe that I prefer the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Lewis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 333B not moved.]
Clause 107 [Fees and charges]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 115, line 46, leave out ("consideration") and insert ("respect").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendment No. 335. The two amendments are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 335:
Page 116, line 11, leave out ("relating") and insert ("in discharging his functions under this Part in relation").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lewis of Newnham Lord Lewis of Newnham moved Amendment No. 336:
After Clause 107, insert the following new clause:
("Register of persons authorised to release genetically modified organisms
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall maintain a register of persons authorised by him as fit and proper to carry out the release of genetically modified organisms to the environment. Authorisation may apply in respect of the release of all organisms or of certain classes of organism.
(2) No person not authorised under subsection (1) shall release a genetically modified organism to the environment except in such cases or circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations under this section.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may speak to the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Nathan and myself. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to set up a register of people considered fit and proper who will release GMOs. It also creates an offence, with appropriate penalties, for anyone not on the register who carries out a release. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended such a register in its 13th report. The relevant quotation is:
"Appropriate arrangements should be made for the registration of the companies or other organisations which carry out trial releases. Criteria for their entry to the register should include the employment of suitably qualified personnel, the provision of appropriate training, designation of safety officers and the establishment of a local safety assessment committee. Registered organisations should be required to identify one or more registered persons who would be responsible for releases".
The thinking behind the register is that some releases may be acceptable only if they are carried out carefully to minimise any risks. The amendment

1999
would provide powers to ensure that such releases were carried out only by people who had convinced the Secretary of State that they were fit and proper to do so.
The Royal Commission's report set out some of those criteria. I have just more or less illustrated those points. Anyone who carried out a release incompetently would be removed from the register, thus providing an extra incentive to take care with releases.
Although Clause 105 enables the Secretary of State to require the releaser to have a consent, it does not establish that only fit and proper persons can hold consents. It does not establish that the Secretary of State, faced with an application for two identical releases—one, let us say, from a well-established and reputable person, with a good track record and one from someone who was in a less confident situation—could approve the former and reject the latter. Nor does it provide that a release which is exempted from the consent requirement, which appears to be possible, should nevertheless be carried out only by a fit and proper person.
There are now in place tight controls on who may spray agricultural pesticides. GMO pesticides will be covered by those controls, but other forms of GMOs may also need controls on releases. The amendment seeks to establish such controls. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I am in a slight state of confusion whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, was also speaking to later amendments. I wonder whether he took his later amendments out of the grouping list when he took out Amendment No. 336 earlier this evening or whether they remain with that original grouping and we are only dealing with Amendment No. 336.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: I am speaking only on Amendment No. 336. Amendment No. 333 has been dealt with.
Lord Hesketh: This is so; but later amendments were grouped with Amendment No. 333. I wondered whether they remained with the original grouping.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: Yes.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I apologise for having had to inquire. The arguments for and against registers of authorised releasers, whether or not statutory, are very important. With GMOs we are dealing with techniques and processes which in many cases are at the frontiers of biotechnology. That is why the responsibility for Part VI is placed firmly in the hands of the Secretary of State.
We are strongly of the view that because of the extreme novelty and innovation of many proposed GMO releases, each proposal needs to be assessed on its individual merits. A prime consideration must be the ability of the proposer to conduct the release. Releases will differ, one from another, for example, in location, extent or type of genetic modification.
2000
Assessments of the competence of those proposing to make releases therefore need to be considered separately in each case.
If we attempted to generalise this process by granting prior authorisation to certain persons, whatever their individual qualities and skills, difficulties would arise. This would be, for example, in testing a person for suitability for inclusion in the register and testing that a person once registered had kept pace with developments in the field.
I hope that the noble Lord accepts that we have very seriously considered whether a releaser register would be appropriate. The arguments that I have deployed are the reasons we resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps it is remiss of me to keep rising at this time of night, but the Minister is proceeding on the assumption that we start from the base that all those involved in these emissions are goodies till proved baddies. The noble Lord, Lord Lewis, has made a legitimate case. Whatever walk of life one works in, whether it is building, engineering, the City of London or the legal profession, there are people who have made reputations that stand being tested by anybody. There are other people involved in those spheres who do not come out so well, whichever yardstick one uses.
For the Government to proceed on the basis that everybody in this sphere must be considered from the same angle seems to me to be starting from the wrong premise. The noble Lord, Lord Lewis, has made a legitimate case. The Government may do well to examine it in rather more depth than just the answer given tonight that they think it will come out all right. I see no demerit in taking the point that people with an established reputation can be put on trust against those who are an unknown quantity.
Lord Hesketh: I must resist this suggestion, particularly as it comes from the Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. The Government are constantly questioned about why they are not tougher. Then we introduce a state of affairs where we err on the side of caution and immediately the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, assaults me for going the wrong way. I feel it has a slightly hollow ring in this case.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I am entitled to ask the Minister what he refers to.
Lord Nathan: I am delighted to hear the Minister say that he is considering each particular release as requiring a specific consent. That is extremely cheering. However, I think some reality needs to be brought into the discussion in that at the moment we are at the stage of dealing with trial releases in the course of development. Inevitably the supposition in one's mind is that the developer of a particular GMO is the party who knows all about it and who is probably extremely knowledgeable and competent to carry out the release. In that context it may not be necessary to consider the matter of registering

2001
releasers. However, there are other contexts to consider.
One is where for example, a company or a person properly imports a genetically engineered organism or a product made with a genetically engineered organism. He may be perfectly competent in every way but he may not have experience in carrying out releases. In that case a register of releasers would be helpful. One thinks of the expert consultants in this field—there are few of them—who could well qualify as experts for the purpose of releases.
However, beyond the trial area there is the matter of spraying pesticides which the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, mentioned. We know that that is covered by applicable consents. The noble Lord in answering a question referred to the fact that this Bill is supposed to cover a long period and to have the necessary flexibility. Let us suppose that a technique is developed of spraying metal with a view either to preventing rust or getting rid of it. Let us hope that this is developed in the not too distant future. That process may require just as much care as the spraying of pesticides, but it would not be covered by the pesticides regulations. One can think of all kinds of situations where the use and application of a finished product comprising GMOs would need to be dealt with with care and expertise. It is for that purpose among others that registered releasers would be a useful classification to ensure that those releases were carried out by competent and well tried people.
Lord Hesketh: I do not wish to delay the Committee. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, does not want to hear a repetition of what I have said. There is one part of the argument that I would emphasise more than any other, which is that we are concerned that someone's ability may become weakened while he is on the register. There is no protection against that state of affairs. That is one of the reasons why there were so many lengthy discussions on the problems of the register.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: I am concerned about this matter, but I take it that we are talking here about a different timescale. I am consoled by the fact that in the initial stages the register will essentially be an individual register of the people who are carrying out the trial experiments. However, a time will come—that is the success story of genetically modified organisms—when there will be general releases of GMOs on a commercial scale of the same nature and magnitude as occur at the moment with pesticides.
However, as we approach that time—I admit that it will not be in the immediate future—I merely request that this point will have the opportunity to be reconsidered. We shall then move into exactly the same regime as has been accepted for certain other types of releases. All we are doing is insisting—that has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Nathan—that certain types of release do not come under the pesticide legislation. However, exactly the same kinds of problems will be associated with them from the point of view of society at large. With that pointer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 108 [Appointment etc of inspectors]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 336A:
Page 116, line 16, leave out from ("inspectors") to (", such") in line 17 and insert ("for carrying this Part into effect").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 336A improves the wording of Clause 108 by clarifying that the Secretary of State may appoint inspectors for the purpose of carrying Part VI into effect. The effect of Amendments Nos. 340ZB and 336B is to enable the Secretary of State to delegate enforcement functions under Part VI by agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I should like the Minister to explain the Government's intentions. The amendment removed the word "inspectors" for the definition of those appointed to police the genetic modification regulations. Is it still intended to conclude an agency agreement with the HSE to provide the inspectors? Currently there are only two inspectors in an establishment of three which means that it is 33 per cent. below the full establishment. That small number already has to police nearly 400 institutions. What are the Government's intentions in that regard?
The Earl of Arran: The enforcement of Part VI will be undertaken largely by inspectors appointed under Clause 108. There are two main requirements for such inspectors. First, they should possess appropriate expertise, which will require special training and development in such a new field. Secondly, the inspection arrangements should as far as possible synchronise with those operated by existing inspectorates, particularly HSE inspectors who are responsible for enforcing human safety aspects of GMO operations in order to avoid duplication of visits to premises.
Existing HSE inspectors have an excellent track record in enforcing the existing human health controls over GMOs. At present they lack environmental expertise to enforce the proposed provisions because the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act does not protect the environment. However, subject to appropriate recruitment and training they are well placed to gain the necessary additional expertise.
All things considered, the most sensible and efficient arrangement therefore seems likely to be one in which HSE acts on behalf of DoE and other departments under an agency agreement. Amendment No. 340ZB provides appropriate delegation powers on which to base such an agreement. The Committee will be pleased to know that we already have arrangements for such an agreement well in hand.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 336B:
Page 116, line 29, at end insert:
("(5) In this Part "inspector" means, subject to section (Delegation of enforcement functions) below, a person appointed as an inspector under subsection (1) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 336C:
Page 116, line 29, at end insert:
("(5) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself in respect of each financial year in which functions under this Part are exercisable that adequate resources and staffing for inspection and enforcement are available to secure the effective implementation of the requirements of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment draws attention to concern over the level of staffing of the inspectorate which will assist the Secretary of State and whose work will inform the advisory committee. Will the Minister make a statement on the level of resources available and whether they will be adequate?
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 336C is to require that the Secretary of State satisfies himself in respect of the annual resources available for the inspection and enforcement requirements of Part VI. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that resources will be available to do the work required under the Bill. That applies as much to Part VI as to the rest of the Bill, as I have repeatedly emphasised throughout the passage of the Bill in Committee. Thus I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment will allow us to improve on that assurance.
Lord Dean of Beswick: On the basis of the Minister's reply I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 109 [Rights of entry and inspection]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 336D:
Page 116, line 32, leave out ("purpose of assisting in") and insert ("purposes of").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 336E, 336F and 336G. These are all straightforward amendments which seek to clarify the rights of entry and inspection of inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State under Clause 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 336E to 336G:
Page 116, line 34, leave out ("so far as exercisable in relation to premises").
Page 117, line 6, after second ("him") insert ("any person duly authorised by the Secretary of State and").
Page 118, line 26, leave out from ("possession") to ("an") in line 27 and insert ("under that power of —

(a) any thing that forms part of a batch of similar things, or

(b) any substance,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Obtaining of information from persons]:
[Amendments Nos. 337 and 337A not moved.]
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 [Power to deal with cause of imminent danger of damage to the environment]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 337B:
Page 119, line 14, leave out from ("of") to ("found") and insert ("anything").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 337B to 337F are of a clarifying and technical nature. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 337C to 337F:
Page 119, line 26, leave out from ("premises") to first ("a") in line 27.
Page 119, line 29, leave out from ("after") to ("has") and insert ("anything").
Page 119, line 34, leave out from ("where") to ("was") and insert ("it").
Page 119, line 35, leave out from ("on to (", also") and insert ("it").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 111, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 338 not moved.]
Clause 112 [Offences]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 338A:
Page 120, line 4, after ("(3)") insert ("(a), (b) or (c)").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 339 and 340 not moved.]
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 113 to 115 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 340ZA not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 340ZB:
Before Clause 116, insert the following new clause:
("Delegation of enforcement functions
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, by an agreement made with any public authority, delegate to that authority or to any officer appointed by an authority exercising functions on behalf of that authority any of his enforcement functions under this Part, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the agreement.
(2) For the purpose of this section the following are "enforcement functions" of the Secretary of State, that is to say, his functions under—

section 104;

section 108(1) and (4);

section 110;

section 112(10); and

section 115;

and "inspector" in sections 109 and 111 includes, to the extent of the delegation, any inspector appointed by an authority other

2005
than the Secretary of State by virtue of an agreement under this section.
(3) The Secretary of State shall, if and so far as an agreement under this section so provides, make payments to the authority to reimburse the authority the expenses incurred in the performance of functions delegated under this section; but no such agreement shall be made without the approval of the Treasury.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 [Definitions]:
[Amendments Nos. 340A to 342 not moved.]
Clause 117 agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

  ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN EXHIBITIONS: PUBLIC FUNDING
  ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN EXHIBITIONS: PUBLIC FUNDING
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT: FORMER MINISTERS
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT: FORMER MINISTERS
  EMPTY DWELLINGS IN LONDON
  EMPTY DWELLINGS IN LONDON
  WALES: HEALTH AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS
  WALES: HEALTH AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS